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

Heart diagram

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2012 at 07:15:44 (UTC)

Reason

This was previously nominated by User:Makeemlighter here and was closed with no quorum. The diagram has evolved a bit and thought might give it another try. Issues raised by Jjron have been fixed if not improved.

Articles in which this image appears

Human heart, Heart, Ventricle (heart), Chordae tendineae

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology

Creator

ZooFari

• Support as nominator ----ZooFari 07:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. OK diagram and I like the cross-section approach. However, in the two general hear articles, there are a lot of similar diagrams and such (one has this image dropped down into references and is just way overloaded with same stuff). For the more particular articles on heart string and ventricle, the diagram is somewhat helpful as they lack a diagram. But I think for those articles, this drawing is overkill, labeling every part of the heart, rather than the few relevant to that smaller topic.TCO (Reviews needed) 06:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say "in the two general hear articles, there are a lot of similar diagrams and such", but there aren't any other cross-sectional diagrams of hearts in either article. There are external labeling diagrams, but you don't get a perspective on the actual shape of the chambers. Spencer^T♦C 06:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per previous nomination; I supported that as well. Spencer^T♦C 06:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, AGF it is accurate to the sources. upstateNYer 05:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is a beautiful diagram --Guerillero | My Talk 19:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although the highlight on the left common carotid artery should be curved to match the shape of the artery. Kaldari (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One of the references (second) is a broken link which should be fixed. It is worth putting a webcite (http://www.webcitation.org/) link in a comment next to references if something is liable to disappear (eg web links). JJ Harrison (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspend until reference fixed. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Updated sources and fixed gradient errors. ZooFari (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I click through past the image page the backing of the left atrium disappears (visible on image page). Can someone check this? --jjron (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I have also changed the gradient above the semilunar valve leading up into the pulmonary arteries to make it more "hole-like". You may compare between the versions and re-evaluate (if procedures here allow it). ZooFari (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - updated refs are fine. Needs moving back to voting area...Nikthestoned 16:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops! Makeemlighter (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to voting for a few more days. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if you just want more support votes, you have another here. Quite nice. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Though I think we have too many FP diagrams that aren't anything very special. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pteronura brasiliensis (talk • contribs) 16:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (Awesome work) and congrats :-) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Heart diagram-en.svg --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Abbas

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2012 at 17:58:16 (UTC)

Reason

A high resolution, very good quality, freely licensed photograph of Kamal Abbas, arguably one of the most important figures of the Egyptian labor movement and a prominent labor rights activist during Hosni Mubarak's reign.

Articles in which this image appears

Kamal Abbas

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Hossam el-Hamalawy - Modified/Uploaded by Jbarta

• Support as nominator --The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Mohamed ElGohary (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: A previous nomination of an uncropped version of this image was closed with no consensus. Jujutacular (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Ahmad E Shahin (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Marrante (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great photo, better than the un-cropped version. Like the grayscale too. - Al Ameer son (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per reflections on glasses and fact that the image would have higher EV if it were in colour. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This has been rather widely canvassed on about fifteen user pages, eg [1], [2], ... , [3], ... , [4]. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per Crisco. O.J. (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose reduced EV in BW. Please do not canvas. --99of9 (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The canvassing is worse than I thought. Only the supporters from the Commons nomination were approached (on Commons): [5][6][7][8]. In that vote there was also evidence of unusual vote stacking. --99of9 (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose --Trivial shot, canvassing. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Alvesgaspar Clegs (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Would a FP delegate please close this candidate. There is no possible way to have a fair and balanced discussion about this picture and it's EV with canvasing to this degree. I am appalled. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Speedy close Guerillero makes an excellent point. Clegs (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Closed due to evidence of canvassing. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment: I considered commenting that this should be left to run its course and canvassed votes discounted, but discounting every new user's vote on the suspicion that they may have been canvassed through unseen means, seemed the wrong thing to do, so it might be better to speedy close this without prejudice, not least because some people are now opposing because of the canvassing rather than giving consideration to the picture's merits. I do, therefore, recommend that this not be re-run in the near future as we may end up in the same situation again. I hope that those who canvassed will consider in earnest that FPC is not a popularity contest, but an objectivity-driven attempt to elect images of particularly high quality and encyclopaedic value. As we all try to uphold the highest standards in avoiding cultural bias (*looks around*), the possibility exists that this would have been promoted in the absence of canvassing. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Treskilling Yellow

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2012 at 03:06:24 (UTC)

Reason

High Ev, featured in commons,

Articles in which this image appears

Treskilling Yellow, Postage stamps and postal history of Sweden, David Feldman (philatelist), Philipp von Ferrary

FP category for this image

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

Creator

sv:P.A. Sparre

• Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- High quality digitization. That such a stamp can sell for several thousand dollars... Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support Please make it clear where the digitisation has come from on the image page. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  23:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Crisco 1492God Emperor^Talk 10:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I would support straight away, but we do really need to know where this digitisation came from. J Milburn (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. No question. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I would like to see JJ Harrison's concern fulfilled --Guerillero | My Talk 20:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This nom's voting period expired three days ago; why is it still here? Are we suspending it until the source of the digitization is confirmed? Clegs (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended pending clarification on digitization. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've asked the uploader where the image came from, but he's blocked/banned right now, so it might take a while. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• According to Claritas, the image came from here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Gul tre skilling banco.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henry II of France and Catherine de' Medici

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2012 at 21:34:18 (UTC)

Reason

Trying again, after the last time a half voter was missing

Articles in which this image appears

Henry II of France, Basilica of St Denis

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture

Creator

Roi Boshi

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Added Alt 1 with reduced noise levels. O.J. (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, I withheld from voting last time, but I guess if it's coming back I may as well comment. I do quite like the composition, but I find this all a bit murky to be honest; I understand that this in difficult lighting conditions and better lighting may be very difficult, but it honestly doesn't quite do it for me. Some of the other images linked on the image page, while possibly done using on-camera flash, show that better lighting may be possible, and would also bring up truer colours. Couple that with the limited extent of the image - we can't see the whole tombs, only the top third or so, Catherine is well and truly out of focus, and even the lower shoulders and 'bed' of poor old Henry are gone, and it doesn't quite make it for me. --jjron (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose also... There's a lot of chromatic aberration (I believe that's the term!) going on throughout the image, such that at 100% much of the image is red and green. I guess this is a result of the high ISO used but is still not ideal. Additionally, I'd prefer an angle something like this to show all of both of the tombs. Nikthestoned 16:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other angle is boring. Tomer T (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps seen as boring, but of far greater encyclopedic value, in my opinion. Nikthestoned 09:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt 1 I love the angel it adds to the photo. The tomb from above would be boring --Guerillero | My Talk 22:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Would like to see the whole sculpture, not just the bust with the rest cut off. Clegs (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Both the angle and the crop make the subject a bit difficult to take in. —Eustress ^talk 18:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IIT Machinery Hall

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2012 at 19:59:59 (UTC)

Reason

I saw this was the Commons POTD today and it is a Chicago building. It has been reshot and corrected since Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/IIT Machinery Hall in 2010.

Articles in which this image appears

Illinois Institute of Technology, Douglas, Chicago, Romanesque Revival architecture, Illinois Institute of Technology Academic Campus, List of Illinois Institute of Technology buildings

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Jovianeye

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Good quality. EV is good for the list, but I don't think there's enough for a POTD blurb... new article, perhaps? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JJ Harrison (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - looks so clean! Nikthestoned 16:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's not the most interesting looking building, but I can't deny that it's well shot. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. -- Spurzem (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:IIT Machinery Hall.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pachira aquatica

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2012 at 21:24:52 (UTC)

Reason

A very nice image, valuable to the article Pachira aquatica

Articles in which this image appears

Pachira aquatica

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits

Creator

Lycaon

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality and EV.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  23:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 - the edit looks right to me. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --jjron (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Pref to Edit 1. --jjron (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I was going to suggest a more balanced crop (given the nut is slightly to the left of centre) but given the foliage I'd say it's about right as is. Nikthestoned 17:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC) — Prefer Edit 1. Nikthestoned 12:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support high EV --Guerillero | My Talk 22:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Isn't it a bit too warm? --Muhammad(talk) 02:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thinking the same... ZooFari (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree now that I'm back at home with a proper monitor. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Size reference--even a measurement stated in the image page--would be helpful. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose per Muhammad. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't oppose because of my reason. Fixing the color is a very simple thing to do --Muhammad(talk) 08:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I made a corresponding minimal edit a few days ago, and it got reverted on Commons with the reasoning that edits of existing QIs/VIs are nuh-uh, but Lycaon previously communicated that he wants edits to be uploaded over the top, so I've asked the reverter what he wants to happen. If anyone wants to express an opinion, feel free to do so on his Commons talk page. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm very prepared to change to a support when the colour is fixed, but until then I stick by my oppose. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support alt 1 only, looks good. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is that exclusively for ALT1? Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Clearly he means Edit 1 only. --jjron (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • He clarified after my comment. I had asked to ensure an accurate count by the closer. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Sorry, I futilely didn't want to clog up the nom with too much off topic blah. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sorry, perhaps we should just remove this OT blah. :) --jjron (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The warmness matches the climate on that location.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 09:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit 1 Uploaded --Muhammad(talk) 05:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 --Muhammad(talk) 05:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose edit 1 - I think you've taken it a bit too far, appears rather bleached now. Try somewhere in the middle. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with PLW, I prefer the original.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  22:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • +1 --Guerillero | My Talk 16:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • +2 Pteronura brasiliensis 16:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original, Support Edit 1 The color correction has given it enough EV to convince me. Clegs (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. The cooler colours are more natural. I don't think it would strike anyone as bleached unless viewed next to the original, which may be more pleasing but is arguably of lower EV.
  • Must remember to sign comments! God Emperor^Talk 20:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pachira aquatica (fruit) edit1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Farmer's Daughters

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2012 at 23:15:37 (UTC)

Reason

High quality PD film poster, interesting cover art (great catchline for a porno as well).

Articles in which this image appears

The Farmer's Daughters

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Employee(s) of Taurus Productions, restoration by PawełMM

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but unless the white area is a part of the image, it could be cropped out I think. Brandmeister t 11:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As with File:Plan 9 Alternative poster.jpg and File:Poster - Island of Lost Men 01.jpg, the blank area is part of the poster. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Noticeable JPEG artifacts, especially along high-contrast edges (see the pitchfork for example). Also, the cloning out of the creases is a bit sloppy (see pitchfork holder's chin for example). Kaldari (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Kaldari. Clegs (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Throat

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2012 at 23:55:37 (UTC)

Reason

High quality reproduction of (admittedly fairly simple) film poster for a very notable pornographic film. I prefer the one with a handjob, but one without hands is available too.

Articles in which this image appears

Deep Throat (film), Golden Age of Porn

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Employee(s) of Bryanston Pictures or a subsidary, restored by Quibik

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose --I think this is a nice image, but too light and washed out. And other than being tied to the most famous porn flick ever, there is nothing special about this image. – JBarta (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• To quote myself below "Our personal taste in the art style in something such as a movie poster or artwork should generally not be considered, but the quality of the reproduction. The reason being that the EV is derived from its representation of the subject of an article". This is the same reason that a quality reproduction of Campbell's Soup Cans (if it were freely licensed) could be a FP despite having a fairly simple subject matter. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not quite the same; this image isn't a famous piece of artwork, it's an image that was used to accompany a famous piece of "art" work. The noted work is the film, not the poster. J Milburn (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Crisco, by your reasoning, every quality reproduction of any two dimensional work that has encyclopedic value is deserving of featured picture status. Why is this image any more deserving than other similar images? Regarding the image quality, looking at other versions of this image both here and on the web, I believe I'm accurate in making my criticisms about the colors and lightness. If you disagree, please tell me why. – JBarta (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @J Milburn: Gotcha. I was considering the one which is essentially lines and squares, but I couldn't remember it's title.

@Jbarta: Would I support a faithful copy of the cover of The White Album? Probably not... probably. Would go great for April fool's day though. For this, I think it's complicated enough to deserve input. As for the colouring comments, I will upload an alt when I can get to a web cafe. This laptop doesn't have the proper software and my one that does died while I was at RecentChangesCamp in Canberra. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I am not a fan. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Subject matter has perfectly suitable EV. My monitor may not be configured correctly, but the black-and-white image at the top looks kind of jpeggy. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you look at the original scan/photo you'll see the photo of the woman is blown up halftone. The image quality of the poster itself is is somewhat low (at least by modern standards) and the scan just picked that up. The image was subsequently edited to minimize the halftone effect (among other things). The current image is an improvement, but still suffers from being a mediocre quality poster. Actually, a case could be made that because of the smoothing of the halftone, the current image is not a faithful reproduction of the original poster. – JBarta (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SU25 diagram

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2012 at 07:58:40 (UTC)

Reason

Awesome diagram which complements the schematics well. Currently (25 January) POTD on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Sukhoi Su-25

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air

Creator

Altoing

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Encyclopedic and interesting to the extreme. Very well done. – JBarta (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom Did you get your laptop going? JJ Harrison (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, not yet. I'm on the Toshiba, which is second rate despite being newer. Usually Mrs. Crisco uses it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is an excellent drawing but it needs labelling of the components being shown. The value of a line drawing over a photo is that this kind of annotation is possible. Therefore to me this falls down on EV. - Zephyris _Talk 12:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered that as well. The more I thought about it however, the more I thought labels would simply add unnecessary clutter to an otherwise clean & handsome line drawing. Do you really need labels to tell you things like WING, TAIL, SEAT & ENGINE? I think it's a drawing just meant to be looked over and taken in. Labels would be more useful in more detailed drawings of components or sections rather than the entire plane. At least that's my thought. – JBarta (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new usage of the image certainly improves the EV greatly. - Zephyris _Talk 20:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Can I suggest this probably could do with better article usage to improve EV? At the moment it's buried a heck of a long way down in its single article, but more concerning is that it doesn't even have a caption (much less a good caption). Re the source, is that English version actually in English? And I've noted the reply above about labelling, but I'm rather concerned that apart from not having a caption, that this contains absolutely no information about it on the image page, other than the name of the plane. All that may be acceptable on Commons, but for the 'pedias, I reckon it should be better. --jjron (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my comments above. OK, so I just looked this bad boy up on Russian Wikipedia and over there it has fantastic article usage - have a look for yourself. Fully labelled in beautiful detail in its own section, with links directly off the image to related articles; great! I would definitely support that. Here though, it's simply been dumped down the arse-end of the related article, and that I can't support for a B&W line diagram. Sorry. Give me that Russian style EV and I'll happily change to support. --jjron (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support new usage, as long as it sticks. Unfortunately someone has already halved the size and IMO reduced the EV. I was going to revert, but perhaps worth taking to the article talkpage? --jjron (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll ask on the talk page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per jjron - the usage in that Russian Wikipedia article section is superb, the usage in the English one is... not. Nikthestoned 16:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per updated usage. One point though, I'm pretty sure Protivoblikovochny shield is a mistranslation! Nikthestoned 10:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've added the schematics like in the Russian wikipedia. If it stays... well, that's up to MilHist. Opposing voters, feedback please. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As description added.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 09:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support great diagram(!), and potentially useful as I may be working on Sukhoi Su-25 in the near future. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've noted a lot of similarities between the diagram and that on pages 218–219 from the book Modern Battlefield Warplanes. The one in the book has colours and weapons, but there are detailed similarities between the two. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 08:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a professional-standard cutaway diagram with significant EV Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sukhoi Su-25 kompo vers2.svg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Since Sp33dyphil asked for particular comment: As Nick-D's earlier comment hints, it's unlikely to be a straight scan, especially in SVG format, and it would be difficult to create a free derivative such as this and not have it look similar to a textbook version that is trying to do the same thing, with the same model of airplane. So with Altoing citing a different source here than the one Sp33dyphil claims, and with Commons having happily promoted this to FP (plus long-term history of contributions from Altoing), in the absence of further evidence that this was a closer kind of reproduction than we're allowed, I consider the point solved. Let us know if anything new surfaces. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Running chicken

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2012 at 19:34:11 (UTC)

Reason

Illustrates camera panning clearly using an original subject. The motion blur in most of the hen's body and legs adds to the feeling of motion

Articles in which this image appears

Panning (camera)

FP category for this image

Birds and Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk)

• Info -- A second try as I wasn't satisfied with the outcome of the first (here) and believe that the picture deserves the distinction. Not for its cutness (which certainly helps) but mainly because of its ev. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The image has minimal EV though. It's only in one article and it replaced an image that, in my opinion, better illustrated the concept of panning. There are some things I don't find attractive in this image in particular. The background does not have that horizontal crisp "panning feel" that is appealing in the former image of the article (and lead image) The low shutter speed has made the subject underexposed or less appealing contrast. Since the chicken moves up and down, I'm not sure if it is a good subject to use for illustrating panning. What's the rebuttal to the opinions in the previous nomination? ZooFari (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per all the reasons given in the mentioned previous nom (and above). I feel these are all better illustrations of panning. (and 2 are already FPs...) Nikthestoned 10:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and recommend booting it out of the panning article. The previous picture was much better. Clegs (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This picture already represents camera panning as a featured picture. That picture is IMO far better to represent the article. This nominated picture is alright (i guess...), but it doesn't really represent camera panning that well. I can take a picture like this by pointing my camera at my dog (while she is running) and taking a quick picture. Its just not a good representative picture, and i don't feel it is really the best picture Wikipedia has to offer on this subject. Dusty777 (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above and my comments in the previous nom (which I think are still valid!). File:2007 swifts creek lawnmower races05.jpg is IMO a far superior example of panning and shouldn't have been replaced by this in the article. --Fir0002 04:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black-faced female impalas at waterhole

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2012 at 21:25:56 (UTC)

Reason

why you think it meets the FPC criteria and should be featured (check criteria first)

Articles in which this image appears

Impala

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Pro . High quality, "WOW"-factor arises by the water droplets from the snout of the specimen in the middle. Grand-Duc (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question What EV does this have over the other impala pictures? --Muhammad(talk) 02:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This photograph depicts 3 different viewing angles of an impala, hence a high educational value. --Grand-Duc (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Drinking position also adds EV. ZooFari (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I echo the concerns above - there are already four impala FPs - kind of hard to justify a fifth. I'd suggest a delist and replace of the current female FP (File:Female impala.jpg) as this one is higher image quality and has the additional EV of the waterhole (grasslands already being shown in the male impala FP and the oxpecker FP) --Fir0002 04:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is the species: petersi (Aepyceros melampus petersi = black-faced impala) from the north of Namibia. The other FP impala is the species melampus (Aepyceros melampus melampus) from the east of Afrika. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Different subspecies gives enough EV for me, though I agree we probably need to have a impala trim. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Again impalas? Imho bad composition, overall too dark and has nothing eyecatching.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 09:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, again an impala, but incl. hooves! And I think you need to calibrate your monitor. The image isn't dark. It is perfect exposed. Take a look to his histogram. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  My monitor is perfectly fine. File:Serengeti Impala3.jpg has better contrast and composition. Background is out of focus.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Image is executed well technically, but lacks a certain bang. No argument about EV, it just doesn't grab me the way I expect an FP to do. Clegs (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. -- Spurzem (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a fan of the harshness and direction of the lighting. It creates annoying shadows that distract form the facial features. --Dschwen 15:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very nice! --Brackenheim (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Aepyceros melampus petersi female 8014.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A close one, but if dissenters don't make their objections official, there's little a closer can or should do. Grand-Duc, please use "support" in future instead of "Pro". Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saint-Jacques Tower Paris ca. 1867

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2012 at 22:34:42 (UTC)

Reason

Very good illustration of the tower, pictured right after the restoration by Théodore Ballu carried out between 1854-58. It provides also an excellent illustration of the square surrounding it and its users.

Articles in which this image appears

Saint-Jacques Tower, Théodore Ballu

FP category for this image

Architecture

Creator

Charles Soulier

• Support as nominator --Elekhh (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, very good quality for a 1867 photo. Brandmeister t 23:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  01:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Agreed, amazingly crisp photo considering the age. You can really see just how slow the film was to expose though, judging by the motion blur of the people. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Fir0002 04:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 14:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A very striking photograph, good EV. Kaldari (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support! I love old photos with such amazing quality. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice, very nice --Guerillero | My Talk 17:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pteronura brasiliensis 17:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- I probably don't need to weigh in here, but... Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:La Tour St. Jacques La Boucherie à Paris ca. 1867.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Headshot of male Impala

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2012 at 16:47:11 (UTC)

Reason

Nice picture of a male Impala. Close up, decent EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Impala

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Joachim Huber Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Pteronura brasiliensis 16:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sorry, the title's off because I don't know how to promote different resolutions than the basic ones. Pteronura brasiliensis 16:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Heavy compression artifacts on its neck and back. Caption needs major improvement also. Dusty777 (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about that. Caption fixed. Pteronura brasiliensis 17:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It appears there is already an overabundance of Impala FPs - the Impala article has no less than four (the impression one gets is they are a relatively easy subject on a safari). This shot adds nothing new to the existing FPs --Fir0002 04:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I saw, none were close up like this one. Pteronura brasiliensis 17:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose On File:Serengeti Impala3.jpg you see the full impala, and here not.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 09:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Info The image File:Serengeti Impala3.jpg don't show the hooves too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  But the whole body--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Fir0000000000002 ;-) Clegs (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thanks for nominating this picture taken by me but I don't think it has the sufficient EV for FP. If we ever have something about imapala horns then perhaps we can nominate it. --Muhammad(talk) 19:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forest canopy

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 00:56:19 (UTC)

Reason

An image of a forest canopy which illustrates how the treetops pack closely together to capitalise on sunlight.

Articles in which this image appears

Canopy (biology)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants

Creator

God_Emperor

• Support as nominator --God Emperor^Talk 00:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This photo had been in the article canopy for 11 minutes before its nomination here. It's best to wait to see if it's stable in the article before nomination... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would put this on hold for 5 days. That is often enough time to see if the article writers support or reject the image --Guerillero | My Talk 17:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not counting edits related to the current FP candidate being added, the article has had 2 edits since the beginning of November. It's not an actively written article, so anything you put up will stay for an indefinite amount of time. Clegs (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd suggest just waiting until the image has been in for a week before nominating - that is what the rules proclaim. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I'm not really a fan of the image regardless of how secure it is in the article. It doesn't really show the canopy very well and is underexposed. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The image fails to show what the nominator stated in his intro, that it " illustrates how the treetops pack closely together to capitalise on sunlight". The different tree canopies are quite widely spaced. I know the effect he is alluding to, but this isn't it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose' I'd want an illustration of canopy to be a little denser than this. This is almost half blue sky.Clegs (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Good picture as it is but no real wow. How do we know this is a forest, for one thing? I know people who could go out and take this sort of image in their back yards. I sort of expect a picture of a forest canopy to look like, well, an actual canopy. Or to show us big, tapering tree trunks. Or needle-like crepuscular rays or slightly occulted sun peeking through. You get the idea. Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose agree with Daniel Case. Pine^talk 10:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Starry Night

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 08:53:46 (UTC)

Reason

Easily one of Van Gogh's most recognizable works, this faithful reproduction from the Google Art Project is of high resolution and good quality. EV for both the painting and the artist is through the roof.

Articles in which this image appears

The Starry Night, Google Art Project, and several others.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Vincent van Gogh

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 10:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support requires no questions or thought --Guerillero | My Talk 15:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Resolution is a bit borderline though. Really would like to see some of the smaller bacteria as well. God Emperor^Talk 16:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow! 16.4 um/px at the original Google Art resolution... That is pretty impressive! - Zephyris _Talk 19:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great quality; one of his most definitive works and thus strong EV. Spencer^T♦C 01:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Outstanding quality reproduction of what I think is the greatest painting of all time. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Now fixed in the Zoom Viewer. --Dschwen 16:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I notice this image has evidence of wear on the edges and is pretty dim. The rendition here, however, shows the brush strokes much better and has been cleaned up on the edges. Is the image proposed here somehow preferred to the one I've linked to (perhaps for the sake of historicity?). I much better prefer to enhanced version I've linked to. —Eustress ^talk 01:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Unable to open the link (dunno why), I can't know for sure. But since it comes from a wallpaper website, the file there may have been retouched before publication. As for a reason to use this one... it's pretty much guaranteed to be an accurate representation of the painting as it was at the time of digitization, and the resolution is much better. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Nope! 1280x800 and it has substantial parts cropped off. You cannot be serious. Sorry, but please keep in mind that we should choose encyclopedic value and authenticity over sexed-up flickerized saturation fests any time. --Dschwen 14:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Fun fact - my computer used an additional 8.35 GB of ram when I opened this. The quality is amazing. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As we discussed previously (see Adam Cuerden's vote and my response), Google has cut off a miniscule sliver of the painting that is visible in its current frame (there's no way to know whether VG intended that sliver to be visible or not). Chick Bowen 01:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, but when I can't view this image, I can't in good conscience vote for it. Wikipedia needs to be accessible for all, not just for geeks who know how to download a huge image. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd, on Firefox 10 on Windows 7 starter edition (and a pretty bad connection), I can still view it using the large image viewer tools. They aren't working for you? Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • K, the 3rd time looking I found the tiny "Interactive large-image-viewer" link on the image page. Do we think that normal users will see this? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]
      • Although it's been discussed many times before, I agree that we should find a way to make it more intuitive. I asked at WT:FPC if we can apply a fix only on the English Wikipedia or if it must be everywhere, but no reply yet. BTW, is this still an oppose? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not my favorite "starry night", but still beautiful and of course top notch quality. Soon we won't need attending museums anymore. - Blieusong (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support my favourite Van Gogh.Pernoctator (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Van Gogh - Starry Night - Google Art Project.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a small note to this: I raised the resolution to 30,000 pixels wide, and also uploaded the full gigapixel image as a set of four tile images, so any lovers of high resolution should feel free to have another look :-) Dcoetzee 09:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Girls' Generation

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 10:33:49 (UTC)

Reason

High EV (currently lede picture in band's article) and gives fairly equal prominence to each member. Not blatantly advertorial, although admittedly from an advertising campaign. Personally, I like the lighting and the posing is decent.

Articles in which this image appears

Girl's Generation, Girl group

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

LG (via flickr)

• Support as co-nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as co-nominator —Eustress ^talk 23:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support It would be better to identify the members. I found this source, but matching appeared hard for me :) Brandmeister t 11:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a strange feeling that my 11-year-old students could do a better job at that than either of us. On it anyway. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ID done, cap updated —Eustress ^talk 23:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As per my comments at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Girls' Generation I agree the band members need to be identified. I thought that was why the nomination of this was being delayed in the first place. Can we suspend until that happens? --jjron (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've put requests in at two different places, and am liable to bring this to a lesson on Thursday (I wasn't kidding about my students knowing better than me about this). I've tentatively id'd two. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there should be some pundits out there... Brandmeister t 21:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tentatively identified using these three pages. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth just asking two or three of the article regulars on their talkpages? A few have edited multiple times in the last couple of weeks, so are active and perhaps know the band well. A consensus of opinions would also be good. --jjron (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sent two messages. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Crisco jumped the gun. I was assuaging the ID and English-language issues for the file name on Commons -- both of which are now resolved. I've updated the image file name and the image caption. —Eustress ^talk 23:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support now assuming correct IDs. --jjron (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Color needs to be fixed too.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  23:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What colour issues do you see? On this web-cafe monitor and mine at home, the colours look okay. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it's too red.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  22:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else feel its too red? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this effect was made intentionally by the photographer, as the colours become gradually stronger the more your eyes move to the left.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 18:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was quite intentional too, and I don't find it too strong or a problem. Product photography has a bit more liberty when it comes to artistic expression. As has been argued before, it's this artistic expression of the 'product' that is actually part of the EV in my opinion. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nominators. High-quality and very nice EV as the lead photo. Thanks to Eustress for fixing various word-related issues. Fallingmasonry (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like this photograph--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 18:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why local file is downsampled?!   ■ MMXX  ^talk  22:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Don't know how it ended up like that; perhaps Eutress' internet is like my satellite modem - compresses things of its own accord. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, not sure what happened on my end. —Eustress ^talk 17:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It's high quality and a good example of the kitschy Korean pop style. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support   ■ MMXX  ^talk  01:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great picture, and rare that we get a free image of any contemporary musical artist. Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Girls Generation 2012.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A MG PA

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 15:54:29 (UTC)

Reason

Beautiful picture of a rare type of car, nice detail.

Articles in which this image appears

MG P-type, Düsseldorfer_Automobil-_und_Motorsport-Club_05

FP category for this image

Land Vehicles

Creator

Spurzem

• Support as nominator --Pteronura brasiliensis 15:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very sharp, no compression artifacts, and high EV --Guerillero | My Talk 17:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support -- There's something I can't put my finger on that's bothering me when I look at the image. Very nice indeed, but something's nagging me... could it be lighting on the door? Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The background? And FWIW the description on the image page needs to Englishfied for here. --jjron (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is part of it, yes. I don't know if these models are taken to outdoor shows though, so I wasn't going to press on that. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This car was a participant of the Oldtimer Festival 2008. Regards --Pitlane02 talk 09:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Translation is done. I've tried to translate the description and added the coordination. Regards --Pitlane02 talk 09:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This is outside, just on a cloudy day. Pteronura brasiliensis (talk • contribs) 19:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, cloudy. That might be part of it (as I noted above, it is a little dark on the doors). Not sure whether to go full support or stay partial. I'll consider Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cloudy? Those are pretty strong shadows for a cloudy day. (However, on that, perhaps it's the minor backlighting, with the sun being slightly to the rear of the car?) --jjron (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I think so. However, I don't know how you could get that lighted edge like that unless the whole ceiling was all one big light. Which, you know, it technically couldn't be. Unless you tried very hard. Pteronura brasiliensis 15:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, I think wires may have been crossed somewhere. As you said earlier this is outside, however it's clearly not cloudy (or not very cloudy) and is lit by the sun from behind; don't know what you're talking about re ceilings and lights. My parenthetical statement above was directed at Crisco and his uncertain problem with the image. --jjron (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like the silence of this moment in the historic paddock of the Nürburgring. --Pitlane02 talk 09:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Byggxx (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Decent illustration of the car but not featurable. The very unappealing background is in focus, and if the crop were not so tight and it had better composition, its significance as part of the Nürburgring complex might make it acceptable, but as it is it's just ugly metal. It's clearly possible to get images of these cars during races on the track (commons:Category:Oldtimer Festival Nürburgring). Julia\^talk 07:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — M 93 (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Unattractive background is too much of a detraction; nothing places this at the Nürburgring. Not especially sharp or detailed for a car image. Backlighting creating frontal shadows is not ideal as per above discussion. The high number of new voters tipped me off that some somewhat suspicious interwiki canvassing appears to have taken place. --jjron (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background are two historic roller blinds of garages in the old paddock at Nürburgring. -- Spurzem (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If only people used [[:File:Image.jpg]] ;) --Muhammad(talk) 14:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Julia --Muhammad(talk) 14:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- 91.67.198.24 (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC) a not valid voting = anonymous. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support —I like the picture.--Genossegerd (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Erika39 (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unappealing background. Such a small change and it could be so much better. Jujutacular (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per jjron --Leviathan1983 (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per jjron. Clegs (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Background is indeed distracting. —Eustress ^talk 18:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• support. It is a wonderful classic car in front of the historic paddock garages of Nürburgring. Therefore I took this photo. I wonder that the authentic background should be unappealing or distracting. -- Spurzem (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• support -- Well excuted with just enough pop. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 7 O, 11.5 S -> no 2/3 majority. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ich frage mich, wie sich die englischen Kritiker ein gutes Foto von einem MG vorstellen oder was ihnen an dem “abgeschmetterten” Bild nicht gefällt. Einer meinte “it could be much better”. But what should be much better? (Please excuse me that I can not say all this exactly in English.) -- Spurzem (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mooncake

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 14:12:13 (UTC)

Reason

An adequate photo, taken at fortunate angle.

Articles in which this image appears

Mooncake

FP category for this image

Food and drink

Creator

Lybil BER

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister t 14:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Technical aspects: Blown highlights on the cake, heavily visible. Aesthetic aspects: Looks poor on a plain white background, a little context would be better. Encyclopedic aspects: I'd prefer something at least hinting at how it is consumed (those don't quite look like the mooncakes available here, but then Mrs. Crisco bought green ones...) Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's nian gao she bought... duh Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an original background, but 5 out of 9 current food and drink FPs have similar neutral background and the cake is not something sophisticated to show how it's consumed :) Brandmeister t 21:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit 1 Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose All Limited depth of field. Original per Crisco. PLW's edit has plate marks and the bottom left of the plate still visible. I'd be most happy with the original version over either of these edits. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Added Brandmeister t 14:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per JJ. Pteronura brasiliensis 19:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, food FPC are very hard to pass. The food has to be literally perfect. Any slight imperfection in the food will give an oppose. Here, the background is a bit hazy at the edges, and there are minor blemishes on the mooncake: i.e the creases/cuts/whatever at the lower right of the mooncake--Nanoman657 (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 08:56:51 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution and EV; notable artist and notable work. Deceptively simple looking, yet quite impressive.

Articles in which this image appears

Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione, Baldassare Castiglione, and several others

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Raphael

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although the full res image was broken according to Firefox when I tried to view it. At 1400x1742, it looks great. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 14:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the full size was broken for me, too. This should be addressed before we promote it, probably. Clegs (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Viewing works fine in both the flash-based and javascript-based large image viewers, which satisfies me. The resolution and image quality are crazy cool. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Viewing works for me too (Firefox on Windows XP) Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. ●Mehran ^Debate● 17:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Wow at resolution and quality. Julia\^talk 13:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Holy Freaking Snapdragons! aka Support. Don't think I've ever seen an image this high-res on FPC before. Excellent digitisation! Clegs (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Kaldari (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support simply for the resolution wowie.Pernoctator (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Fantastic resolution and otherwise a classic portrait with high encyclopedic value. - Darwinek (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Balthazar Castiglione, by Raffaello Sanzio, from C2RMF retouched.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tachara, Persepolis

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2012 at 00:27:58 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, Ancient palace, Featured in Persian Wiki

Articles in which this image appears

Persepolis

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others

Creator

Mamad

• Support as nominator --Mamad ^TALK 00:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Is it me or does the tilt seem off a little? Spencer^T♦C 01:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's not you. At least I think I know what you are saying. Also, the angle is almost straight-on, but just not quite. Pteronura brasiliensis 02:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; Proper resolution, agreeable angle, and extremely encyclopedic and historical notability. It's a scarce photo of this ancient place and its environment is ideal enough to make it a clear one. I don't know what "tilt" is in your mind! May you explain a little more? ●Mehran ^Debate● 10:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Glossary Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know the meaning of "tilt" my friend, I meant why did you say that? Because I couldn't find it. ●Mehran ^Debate● 13:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was thinking the diagonal upwards shooting of the photo and the fact that it is not quite straight on. Pteronura brasiliensis 14:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, you're right. But as I said above, this is a scarce photo of this area. ●Mehran ^Debate● 18:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Support Good quality, EV--آرش (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Purple fringing in parts of the right half of the image. In addition, the heavy shadows on the right side obscure the detail. Spencer^T♦C 22:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support beautiful image Ram!n (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the user's fourth edit; all 4 of user's edits have been within the past 3 days Spencer^T♦C 03:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above + fishy supports from other users --Muhammad(talk) 05:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little worry about this matter that the others think that there exists a canvassing because of attendance of some Iranian users. I don't know about the others, but I saw this page quite randomly, anyway you can ignore my vote if you feel it's a kind of Canvass. Regards ●Mehran ^Debate● 08:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support exact frame, historical and ancient photo, beautiful symmetry-like picture, acceptable resolution, nice color and synchronous background, narrator of interior palace of Persepolis, essential and deserving for Wiki Pedia! Alborzagros (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Poor framing, geometric distortion, poor image quality. I don't like the national canvassing either. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Are the metal bars on the left side a permanent feature, or did there happen to be restoration work going on at the time the picture happened to be taken? I hasten to point out that we would love, love, love to have a featured-picture-quality picture of this monument, but this picture isn't it. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the metal are bars on the left side is permanent! Mamad ^TALK —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment:I don't want to persuade, but the top region is in restricted area and taking photo of there is not so easy, at least I didn't see a proper image of this place before, and that's why I said it's scarce! ●Mehran ^Debate● 18:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. a little too tight of a crop and a bit out of whack. --Dschwen 15:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The upward shooting angle means there's too much sky in the frame and not enough palace. In particular, we can't see the lower bits of the stuff further to the back. God Emperor^Talk 20:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Just doesn't grab me the way an FP should. Clegs (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Crop is way too tight. Can't compare the size or the structures relation to the surrounding area. That kills the pictures appeal. Dusty777 (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USS Arizona (BB-39)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 01:15:55 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good quality.

Articles in which this image appears

USS Arizona (BB-39)

FP category for this image

Vehicles/Water

Creator

Unknown

• Support as nominator --  ■ MMXX  ^talk  01:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; EV ●Mehran ^Debate● 15:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High EV, nice and sharp, good illustration of probably the most famous battleship in the world. Clegs (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely not? What of the Bismarck, Hood or Yamato? JJ Harrison (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The image caption says the ship is underway, yet I see no bow wave, no wake, etc. Rather, there seems to be a mooring or anchor line from the left bow. Does anyone else concur? Should we change the caption? Clegs (talk) 10:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support Great picture, but the caption needs some improvement (E.G. Where is the ship going? Where did it come from? Whats it doing?). I agree with Clegs. There is no disturbance in the water in the area around the ship, so it doesn't appear to be moving. Dusty777 (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the EV is high but I agree with Clegs --Guerillero | My Talk 17:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Underway, not making way; underway should not be confused with making way, see this, also this article explains that a vessel can be underway with no way on (i.e., not moving), this is the original caption provided by NARA and I assume it is correct. however, the caption's date is probably wrong as suggested by someone here, the ship was modernised in 1930, but in the image she has cage masts instead of tripod masts, the ones you can see here and here.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  00:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see comment by User:Sturmvogel 66 at file's talk page.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sturm also concers on the file's talk page that the ship is anchored and not underway.

I understand the difference, however, she appears to have an anchor line or mooring line coming from her left bow. According to your link, she would then not be considered 'under way'. Clegs (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sturm is right on that. I don't think there's any way to tell where the photo is taken unless we find a distinguishing feature that was only on the ship for a very short period of time, which we could then link with a place. Also, OOC, what do you people of adding back some of the sky and water that was cropped from the top and bottom? Right now it seems too narrow to me (I was the one who originally cropped it, but now I'm rethinking the crop) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like the crop the way it is. It's very aesthetically balanced. Clegs (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too prefer this crop, it is better for the article and has better EV than original image.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  22:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per above. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've corrected the file description. should I rename it and remove the date from file name?   ■ MMXX  ^talk  00:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Arizona (BB39) Port Bow, Underway - NARA - 5900075 - 1930.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M82 galaxy set

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 10:34:43 (UTC)

Reason

Both are of high quality and very striking. The previous nomination was... well, it needs to be read to be understood. Suffice it to say I think a set nomination would work better, although I prefer the true colour image if we must pick only one. This nomination was made after a comment by Extra on my talk page.

Articles in which this image appears

Both together on Messier 82. Individually on another 7 articles.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

NASA

• Support both as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as sub-nominator really striking --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 10:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the alt, as that's the one that is the lead image, and has been for some time. However, nominating the images together was perhaps not the best idea- it was that which led to the clusterfuck last time. J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, the old nom was a little FUBAR... I like both. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Call me ignorant, but in the grand scheme of things this is just another pretty NASA shot like many others we have seen on this page. I'd rather see something new and unique getting the FP badge here. --Dschwen 15:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Pardon? But how else would one represent this galaxy? Would you oppose all bird pictures because "we have enough birds"? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Really, you won't get across such space pics of such quality anywhere, as you seemed to take it. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 09:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• There is certainly an issue here, but the answer would be to encourage alternative kinds of images, not hold back the usual. If it was found, for comparison, that proportionally far fewer women were getting into universities, I'm sure plenty of people would support measures to support and encourage women who are applying; I doubt many would support turning down men who would otherwise have been offered a place. J Milburn (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually that is exactly what is happening on the job market, if certain quotas have to be met. --Dschwen 23:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But there is no limit to the no of FPs we can have --Muhammad(talk) 16:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite; that's why I thought that university admissions was a more apt comparison than jobs. J Milburn (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Dschwen's opposition is poorly informed. Just because objects are in space does not mean they have EV for the same reason. The only FPs that have marginally overlapping EV with this image are the 10-odd galaxy pictures. However, none of these illustrates a starburst galaxy (except the obviously anomalous Antenna galaxies). M82's status as the prototype for this important galaxy class gives it strong and unique EV. As Crisco says, Dschwen is equating eagles and ostriches. Fallingmasonry (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It should be made more prominent in the caption the bits of the spectrum that these images are from though. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt, Neutral on Original (why are they both labeled "Original"?) For the 1st image, I think the EV would be better if the IR and XRay images weren't composited, but presented as a pair. Fallingmasonry (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed Original (#2) to ALT Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:M82 HST ACS 2006-14-a-large web.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Only "alt" had enough support. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Everest from the air

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 13:52:31 (UTC)

Reason

A striking view of Mount Everest and another of the other highest peaks in the world, Lhotse, giving a good idea of the topography around it for extra EV

Articles in which this image appears

List of highest mountains, Mount Everest, and one more

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Shrimpo1967 from Flickr. Edited by Durova

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Which direction are we facing? An indication in the caption (e.g., south face of Mount Everest) or something like that would be helpful. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• South of the mountains, facing north (so south face of Lhotse and Everest, south-east face of Nuptse) [9] Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the image on Commons is annotated. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. -- Spurzem (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC) I prefer Edit 1. -- Spurzem (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High value picture. Looks like there is a slight CCW tilt to it (from the cloudline/horizon). --Dschwen 15:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support One of the tilt corrected ones. Per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC
• Comment Can I ask all of you to specify whether you prefer the original original or the fixed version currently uploaded over the top? Commons is complaining again, and the fix may have to be uploaded separately... Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably better to upload separately. They both look okay to me. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support Needs an improved caption. Dusty777 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In-article or in nomination? If in-nomination, fixed. If in-article, soon to be fixed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support In-nomination. Dusty777 (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, though agree with Dschwen that it may be slightly tilted. --jjron (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Support consensus tilt-corrected version. --jjron (talk) 05:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Tilt adjusted version added. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit-1 The correction greatly improved the picture. Dschwen made a good call on that. Dusty777 (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit-1. Nice edit. —Eustress ^talk 18:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either edit Can't tell a difference between the edits, but they are both better than the original. Very good picture. Clegs (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any edit EV in List of highest mountains.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any edit. Wonderful picture with high EV. - Darwinek (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Buried pretty far down in the article. Makes me wonder if the EV is really exceptional. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I put its use in List of highest mountains first for EV, as it shows two of the mountains. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I saw that, but I considered that usage pretty weak. Nobody else minds the EV, though, so forget I said anything. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support any edit --Guerillero | My Talk 16:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 --Extra999 (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any edit prefer edit 2. Jujutacular (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mount Everest as seen from Drukair2 PLW edit.jpg --Julia\^talk 20:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Preferences (where stated) fell to edit 2 after its addition. Julia\^talk 20:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually see two supports specifically for Edit 1, one preference for Edit 1, one support for Edit 2, and one preference for Edit 2. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Painting watercolors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2012 at 11:47:35 (UTC)

Reason

It's hard to imagine a more comprehensive and aesthetically pleasing depiction of this subject. It was promoted on Commons as early as 2007 and had rather enthusiastic support.

Articles in which this image appears

Watercolor painting

FP category for this image

Culture and lifestyle and/or Artwork/Others

Creator

Dongio

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Beautiful —Eustress ^talk 15:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I like how the lighting brings out the painting, but the unnecessarily cropped of tip of the canvas bothers me a bit. Would have been even more awesome if the "tools" were shown as well. --Dschwen 15:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. This picture is only telling half the story. God Emperor^Talk 20:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Jujutacular (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Very nice. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry to ruin the party, but the technicals are pretty poor (particularly blown highlights on the page). JJ Harrison (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The important details are all present in good quality, and without the play of shadow and highlight, you wouldn't get the nice correspondence between subject and depiction that is possible here (subject = the view through the window). Also, white paper is designed for high reflectiveness. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Technically a solid image, but for this to have full EV, I think that a set of the watercolor paint (like this) needs to be included in the image. Spencer^T♦C 02:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: The natural light on the fresh paint makes the water-based nature of the medium conspicuous. I think the EV lies mainly there and a set of paints is superfluous to that and unnecessary. That could well enough be shown in a separate image, such as this one. Julia\^talk 15:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Extra999 (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dolceacqua43 - Artista locale mentre dipinge un acquarello.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lasseter Highway

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 05:50:44 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality with nice colours. Although minimalist, it has EV as it is representative of large swathes of Australia's Northern Territory. As far as I can tell, our nearest FP is over 1000 km away. Similarly we do not have any FP Landscapes that are anything like this.

Articles in which this image appears

Lasseter Highway, Northern Territory, Perspective (visual)

FP category for this image

Landscapes

Creator

99of9

• Support as nominator --99of9 (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's an alright picture. But, only the foreground is in focus, it has very heavy compression artifacts throughout the rest of the picture, and the sharpness needs adjustment. The caption could be improved also Dusty777 (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please can you explain what you mean by very heavy artifacts, and where you see them? Had your download completed? I do not expect any compression artifacts, because both times it was saved from RAW at JPG-100%. Nor can I see any artifacts. Caption improved. I'll consider sharpening once I understand what you meant by "very heavy compression artifacts". --99of9 (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't see any artifacting either. --jjron (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What he's seeing, (also the OOF mentioned below) is the result of heat waves. Clegs (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the compression artifacts i thought i saw, was due to the rocks in the foreground and the asphalt on the road giving the appearance of artifacts (if you look close enough, you should see what i mean). Dusty777 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not enough of the scene is in focus God Emperor^Talk 20:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Composition leaves much to be desired sadly. I love scenes like this, so I kinda wish this were executed better. Essentially, the image doesn't flow, or carry the eye well. My eye is first drawn to the barren and slightly washed-out horizon, which, in a setting like this, is very disconcerting: it can appear tilted due to the slightest screen distortion, and if the horizon appears tilted, it really taints the shot. As for the highway, it simply enters the frame at an arbitrary vertical point and slices the shot with no apparent deliberateness. The flow that does exist (which is inherent with any road picture) brings the eye to another arbitrary and poorly placed point at the far top-right. Overall, I don't feel like I'm in the setting as I should for an excellent highway photo; instead I'm certain at once that I'm looking at a screen. I'm happy to see it's a QI over at commons, though, as it's definitely interesting and covers a poorly illustrated area. Juliancolton (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Where's the road? I mean, I see it, but it's not prominent enough in a picture supposed to illustrate the road. Opposing on composition grounds. --Rschen7754 03:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I actually like the composition as an Abstract image, but it doesn't help the EV - the subject appears to be the tire tracks in the foreground. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've read through the opposes, but still think that the picture could be an FP. It's bold and seems at first to convey almost surreal natural beauty, but then it's evident that humankind has left its heavy footprint (or tire tracks) on a road it's built across the plain. I'd actually like to see this on our Main Page. dci | TALK 04:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commando parachutiste de l'air n°10

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2012 at 10:07:11 (UTC)

Reason

Good, clear composition; good contrast; illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more.

Articles in which this image appears

Special Patrol Insertion/Extraction, Helicopter Rope Suspension Technique, Commandement des Opérations Spéciales

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military

Creator

Commons User:Kajaibai

• Support as nominator --Mais oui! (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Poor image quality - small, noisy, highly compressed. But agree with nom that this would indeed be excellent if the image quality was up to scratch. FWIW, given the uploader's edit history, I wonder that this isn't potentially a copyvio anyway. --jjron (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is extremely noisy, and it is quite small. It barely fits the size requirements. The underside of the helicopter is also pretty dark. On the positive side, the composition and scene are nice, but that's about it.--Nanoman657 (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above Nikthestoned 16:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I really love the composition and the colours, but the technical qualities really aren't up to scratch. If you see another image that catches your attention, feel free to come back and nominate that! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close Only a photo of historical value, where a photo of better quality would be unobtainable, would ever get away with such a high amount of noise and low resolution. God Emperor^Talk 00:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And also I would argue that this doesn't meet the minimum size requirements. Panoramas must be substantially larger than 1000px on the long edge to ensure sufficient detail can be seen. This is effectively a vertical panorama, so the same logic should apply. God Emperor^Talk 12:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - image has been deleted as apparent copyvio. --jjron (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murugan by Raja Ravi Varma.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 18:29:02 (UTC)

Reason

Featured picture at Commons and well illustrates the iconography of Murugan and painting style of Raja Ravi Varma

Articles in which this image appears

Murugan, Valli, Deivayanai, Kaumaram, Peafowl, Shashthi, Vahana, Arumuka Navalar

FP category for this image

Artwork/paintings

Creator

Raja Ravi Varma

• Support as nominator --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Striking portrayal of a deity, good EV. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Perhaps it needs brightening a little. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is this an original crop (because the sides appear to be cut-off when it comes to feathers)? Brandmeister t 13:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment well about the crop thingy the painting is like that.between can i support it's nomination since i was the one who uploaded it on commons.also i want to know whether the name can be changed to its proper title which is Shri Shanmukha Subramania Swami I actually uploaded this over an older version of the painting.Pernoctator (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, as an uploader, you can support. As for changing the name, you'd have to request that on Commons. See commons:Commons:File renaming. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The crop question was also raised on Commons, but the image is like that. As for the name, IMO the current name is descriptive as well as the common name [10][11]. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there some rule that prefers the common name over the proper title?.i believe some of varma's paintings were untitled and different people have given different names to it.for example the lady givings alms painting is also known as mandodari.now how would you decide which name is common. Pernoctator (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. There is no rule. The policy only says "Titles of media files should be meaningful and helpful in the language chosen", which the current title fulfils. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so whats wrong with Shri Shanmukha Subramania Swami by Raja Ravi Varma.the term murugan is very regional.i think the pan indian term is kartikeya (which is also used by tamils).i had raied this issue on the article of the hindu deity whose painting this is.even western scholars mostly refer to him as kartikeya.some use skanda and kumara too. Pernoctator (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is wrong with "Shri Shanmukha Subramania Swami", but I just saying the current title is correct too.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

say yes or no.otherwise i won't go ahead.also i would like comments on Murugan title being changed to kartikeya.i have raised the issue on the talk page.Pernoctator (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support easily one of varma's best.resolution is good.Pernoctator (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It seems that the image is half. ●Mehran ^Debate● 12:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're trying to say what I think you are - that the image has been cropped, then that has already been explained (no, it has not been cropped, the original composition is just this way). Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read the above comments, but I still think that's not the original composition. All of the paintings which have been showed in the two above links have a similar dimensions and it seems that their dimensions are predefined (both horizontal and vertical). They are a little promotional websites, I will be support if I see a RS coverage which proves that this is the original size. ●Mehran ^Debate● 14:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • More links with same image [12], Christies (a similar lithograph version), The South Asian Times p.34, Davis Museum and Cultural Center, Wellesley College. This is not the first image where Raja Ravi Varma cuts off the bird's sides. His Vishnu File:Raja Ravi Varma, Lord Garuda.jpg is also similar. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - According to Redtigerxyz's references, if it really is its original size, it's proper to be featured with its quality and EV. Agreed with Harrison, I liked this version which is brighter. ●Mehran ^Debate● 17:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Murugan by Raja Ravi Varma.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody expressed any preference for the edit. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Square

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2012 at 01:16:59 (UTC)

Reason

Clean photochrom with good quality and high EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Temple Square

FP category for this image

Places/Architecture

Creator

William Henry Jackson; Retouched by User:Tom dl

• Support as nominator --  ■ MMXX  ^talk  01:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Broken source link. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated, Thanks.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  01:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Wow, I would have thought it was a painting. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that a photochrom is essentially a manually colored photo, so it's not so dissimilar from a painting. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As Crisco said, I would have thought it was a painting. Excellent quality! Dusty777 (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice, def EV too. —Eustress ^talk 17:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support upstateNYer 16:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose has compression artifacts, especially visible in the sky. Pine^talk 10:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doubtful given file size. I see a bit of noise, but no artefacts. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were some marks in the sky, not artifacts for sure. how is it now?   ■ MMXX  ^talk  00:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe noise is the better word. Whatever it is, it still doesn't look quite right. I may be being too picky given the age of this photo. Perhaps what I'm seeing is in the original, so I'll change my vote to neutral. Pine^talk 09:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – like it. Nikthestoned 14:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Temple Square, Salt Lake City, 1899 retouched.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Lisa

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2012 at 12:07:19 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, EV is through the roof (famous artist and one of the world's most famous paintings)

Articles in which this image appears

Mona Lisa and 20 more

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Leonardo da Vinci, digitized by Center for Research and Restoration of Museums of France and retouched by Dcoetzee

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per reasons mentioned by nom. - Blieusong (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Resolution and EV. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great, the resolution is very remarkable in addition to EV. ●Mehran ^Debate● 09:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Another obvious support --Guerillero | My Talk 16:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Extra999 (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsche Bank Twin Towers

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2012 at 12:15:47 (UTC)

Reason

Compelling view of iconic skyscrapers. Also of good resolution, fair quality, and well-exposed, considering how tricky that highly reflective glass would probably be.

Articles in which this image appears

Deutsche Bank Twin Towers, Deutsche Bank, List of tallest buildings in the European Union, 1984 in architecture

FP category for this image

Places/Architecture

Creator

Jürgen Matern

• Support as nominator —With appropriate thanks to the Turkish WP FPC project for the hint! Julia\^talk 12:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Could a building be more phallic? ;) Nicely taken though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice reflections. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wouldn't it be better to have a shot from the ground? It's difficult to separate the building from the rest of the background --Muhammad(talk) 02:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It might work for the towers, but shots from the ground would not be able to sufficiently include the rather unusual bases of the buildings, which is an essential part of the EV. Julia\^talk 15:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. upstateNYer 16:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Diliff, Julia. upstateNYer 16:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well done. Kaldari (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Agree with Julia, nice work and good EV.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  22:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support clear large image of a notable subject. Pine^talk 10:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. ●Mehran ^Debate● 12:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very impressive. Dusty777 (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Extra999 (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Twintowers of Deutsche Bank Headquarter in Frankfurt a.M..jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coriandrum Sativum flowers

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2012 at 19:02:12 (UTC)

Reason

The flower has a 'wow' effect. High clarity image of coriander flower. Adds significant value to the below mentioned article

Articles in which this image appears

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriander and another 15 wiki pages

FP category for this image

Plants/Flowers

Creator

H. Zell

• Support as nominator --Balaji (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm afraid it's a bit low on the resolution, compression artifacts, unsharp, and fringing on the petals. ZooFari (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose essentially per ZooFari. Fair amount of noise on central subject, whatever the cause. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, and for an over zealous use of the shadow highlight too. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose quality is just not there. Noise, low res, artifacting. Suggest reshooting using a nicer camera, and then it might have a chance. Clegs (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salt Lake Temple, Utah

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 10:51:33 (UTC)

Reason

Large clear image of a notable subject.

Articles in which this image appears

Salt Lake Temple, Temple Square, Holy of Holies (LDS Church)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Diliff

The original is used in Temple Square and Holy of Holies (LDS Church), and Alt 1 is used in the Salt Lake Temple article. Alt 1 is recolored.

• Support either version as nominator --Pine^talk 10:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt 1 Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt 1 - EV ●Mehran ^Debate● 09:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Alt 1's colours are a bit unrealistic, and there is banding/posterization as well as blown highlights in the sky. If people prefer the high contrast look, I'm sure a better compromise can be found that doesn't have all of the above faults. I'll process the image from the originals and upload tonight maybe. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've uploaded an improved version over the top of the original, with more contrast, a bit of a saturation boost (but not as much as the alt), and a bit more pixels. You might need to refresh things to see it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The sun is simply at the wrong angle. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt 1 Tomer T (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lighting just isn't right. Clegs (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per JJ & Clegs. Nikthestoned 16:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Weird sun spots on temple. —Eustress ^talk 19:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Photographed with sun in a poor location. Alt 1 over-exposed. Sun spots, but no lens flare. DavidH (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per DavidH. --99of9 (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybach Exelero

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 11:32:59 (UTC)

Reason

Nice pic of a nice car. Since each bird species can have a FP, then this car model can.

Articles in which this image appears

Maybach Exelero, Maybach

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land

Creator

Simon Davison

• Support as nominator --Pine^talk 11:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I really wish we could have that without the people walking behind it. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, but the headlights are much too light. Furthermore people without heads are not attractive. -- Spurzem (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I find this to a rather unflattering image of the car due to the perspective. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The chomped off people and stuff makes this a snapshot rather than a professional looking photo. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "New" Blue Marble

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 01:14:22 (UTC)

Reason

Excellent quality! Not many pictures of the western hemisphere of this type, high EV, Great picture.

Articles in which this image appears

The Blue Marble, Suomi NPP

FP category for this image

Featured pictures/Space/Looking back

Creator

National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA)

• Support as nominator --Dusty777 (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because of wrong proportions of the continents, as already mentioned on Commons (though I can't find trace of it). Something wrong with mapping/stitching process. - Blieusong (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lower simulated orbit is what I understood. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blieusong, clarify this for me. You are opposing because of wrong proportions of the continents, yet you don't see this problem in the picture? (That doesn't make sense.) The Featured Picture Criteria doesn't say anywhere that you can judge your vote just because of something someone else says about the picture. I don't see what the guys over at Commons are referring to. I have never gone to space so I wouldn't know how the continents are proportioned. Dusty777 (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been to space (unlikely to ever happen) but I've already looked at globes and America doesn't look like this wherever I look at them from. I don't follow other judgements recklessly, my reference to Commons was only for information. I also just opened a google earth and tried to find a point of view which would mimick the candidate. I haven't been successful so far, but would be happy to see a proof of the contrary. Note that I assumed this is view simulating what one would see from space (which I guess is what most would do, and not take it as a result of specific projection). - Blieusong (talk)

• Just realizing this is only a low orbit view (as mentioned) but with a very large field of view squeezed into small frame, hence that strange (to me) effect. - Blieusong (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- There is nothing wrong with mapping, as already explained in Commons (see here: [13]). The cause for the apparent distortion is the small altitude of the camera, making the horizon closer and the field of view shorter. That is why I find this picture interesting and deserving the FP status. But not before an explanation is given both in the picture file and in the caption. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be much more clear that this isn't a view of the planet but the result of some projection is a result of a close view of earth with a very large FOV. As it, it's very misleading. - Blieusong (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Large FOV? To simulate the distance the Suomi NPP satellite is from earth, hold a ball that is 10 inches (25 centimeters) in diameter about 5/8ths (1 1/2 centimeters) from your face. That is how far Suomi NPP is away from the earth, and that should give a good example how large the FOV that the VIIRS instrument (the instrument that took the picture(s)) has (Link for verification). According to NASA, the pictures that compose the main picture, were taken over 6 orbits of the satellite going around the earth. There is no "very large FOV" due to the fact that the whole picture wasn't taken at once, but is actually composed of many pictures. Dusty777 (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Neutral Support Both Support Only original per Blieusong and Dusty 777. Took me a little to see what you were talking about, but you'r right, it does make it look like North America takes up over half the earth. Clegs (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:::Look this over again later, but for now the explanation is enough for me to change to Neutral. Clegs (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC) ::::Now that I am actually educated on what's going on, both of them would make good FPs. Clegs (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After examining the alt closer, the white streaks bug me. I really need to stop doing this in bits and snatches in the middle of the night. Makes for very disjointed logic. Clegs (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, but could you please not use my comments as a reason to oppose this particular nomination? Don't want to confuse people since i am the nominator =D. Dusty777 (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Re: Perspective. This image is totally accurate in its representation of the size of North America, and you can test it at home:

Find a globe, shut one eye, and hold it about 6 inches from your face while looking at North America.

Open Google Earth, zoom in so the globe completely fills the window, spin it to find North America.

This is the view you would see of the Earth if you were ~7000km up and looking at the planet with the naked eye or a typical normal-zoom camera. - Zephyris _Talk 14:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Info The perspective is explained quite clearly on the description page (perhaps some of this information should be included in the caption?): This view results from a height of the satellite which is about 826 km above the surface of the Earth. Because of such a low orbit not whole hemisphere is visible, and horizon is in a distance of only about 3300 km while the radius of our planet is 6371 km. The diameter of horizon seen from such a height is about 125 deg. Fallingmasonry (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Image appears to meet all the FP criteria. —Eustress ^talk 20:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The notion that the proportions are wrong appear to have been dispelled. The closer view may be a tad Americentric, but I don't believe that disqualifies it from FP status. God Emperor^Talk 13:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The view is explained well enough... the photographic analogy of a mercator projection. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't see the EV. This image isn't even mentioned in the article. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The entire article is about Blue Marbles and this is one of them and arguably the best. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's mostly about the original Blue Marble. There are also mentions of images released in 2002 and 2005, but other than the caption, there's no mention of Blue Marble 2012. What does this particular Blue Marble add to the article? Maybe something, but I don't think it adds enough for FP. Makeemlighter (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lead mentions it clearly and explains it in some detail later on. As to FP... this is the latest in the series. Article could use a gallery of each new image though.Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my comments above. Makeemlighter (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new section in Blue Marble to provide additional info about the picture, and to increase the EV. Dusty777 (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Weak Oppose because the picture is at least mentioned in the article now. I still think it lacks exceptional EV, though. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I think this particular perspective (from low orbit in combination with wide field of view) is confusing and is of lower EV than any more distant view which represents the relative proportions of continents in a more accurate and comprehensible way (i.e. more similar to the usual projections used in mapping. --ELEKHH^T 21:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain in more detail as to why the picture being composed of pictures from a low orbit lessens the EV? Also, how is this picture confusing? Dusty777 (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It lessens the EV because the chosen peculiar perspective provides a less good overall representation, while there is no significant gain in any detail added as result of the low orbit. With the example you give above, there is no point looking at a ball from 10cm/inch, if you can look at it from 1m/3ft, as it does not provide us a better view. That is confusing should be obvious from the comments above. With a normal field of view not all the planet would be visible, but something like File:View of Earth from MESSENGER.jpg. The peculiar effect of the composed image is that viewers perceive it as if it was taken from a greater distance, and than are confused by the unexpected proportions of the landmass. Again, I see no advantage in an image which is unnecessary confusing. Hope now is clearer what I meant. --ELEKHH^T 00:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Feeling less enthusiastic about this image as a picture of the Earth in itself than I was previously, due to reasons reiterated many times above, but I think it might have more value in an article such as Satellite imagery, say, if the technique were fully described in the article. Failing to see why alt 1 has been added to this nomination as it is essentially a different picture. It has more EV as a picture of the earth, but not as a demonstration of the low-earth orbit mapping technique, the component pictures being take from over 15 times further away, thus giving the more familiar (but neither better or worse) perspective. God Emperor^Talk 21:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination is by no way a "demonstration of the low-earth orbit mapping technique". It would be so if for instance the individual frames would be indicated, or a regular mesh/grid showing the peculiar distortion would be overlayed. Also is unclear what would be the purpose of the "technique", as it doesn't appear to be a good base for the production of useful maps. --ELEKHH^T 21:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support high EV in The Blue Marble. Tomer T (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I find the Alt much better as is taken from 12,000 km (as opposed to the original nom taken from 826 km), thus providing a much better overview. It is also interesting to compare it with the 1972 image File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg showing a similar perspective (although taken from 29,000 km). Therefore if replaced in the article I would support. --ELEKHH^T 21:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you would prefer that version, please go ahead and give you're vote, and the closer will let us know which version gets promoted (If either). If your preference gets promoted, I will personally switch out the pictures. Does that sound good to you? Dusty777 (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, conditional Support Alt-1 if placed in the article. --ELEKHH^T 22:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Any time you have to go to so much effort to explain the perspective, it's probably not worth featuring IMO. Preventing this kind of perspective issue is why we try to use long lenses on architectural subjects. I particularly dislike the white streaks on the alt, so strong oppose on that (I understand how they came to be there, but that does not make them good). --99of9 (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 3.5 opposes, 5 general supports, 1 support original, 1 support alt 1 (we generally assume placement of the winner, btw). Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Archangel Gabriel, Moscow

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 16:28:18 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, great composition, high EV, our best picture of this building

Articles in which this image appears

Menshikov Tower, Russian architecture, List of churches in Moscow

FP category for this image

Creator

NVO

• Support as nominator --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The crop is extremely tight and cuts off a little at the bottom left. I presume it's because there's other stuff around, such as the lampposts and another building that just start to creep in at the top of the photo on both sides. And it looks very slanty. There isn't a straight vertical line anywhere. Lastly, it looks a bit blurry, but in all fairness that might very well be my failing eyes! Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Distracting elements at top, perspective issues, underexposure, low resolution, ... . JJ Harrison (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Matthewedwards. --Nanoman657 (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above and the tilt --Guerillero | My Talk 16:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose too tight framing, distracting elements hanging in. --ELEKHH^T 21:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]