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

Catopsilia pomona

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 11:51:28 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good quality. Commons FP.

Articles in which this image appears

Catopsilia pomona

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Jkadavoor

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support --///EuroCarGT 18:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• oppose annoying lighting.--Alborzagros (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak support.--Theparties (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose; sorry, this one's not quite there for me. The article's very much over-illustrated, and while it's a great picture, I don't feel that it stands out above the others in EV terms. J Milburn (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General Rafael Urdaneta Bridge

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 12:06:03 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good quality. Commons FP.

Articles in which this image appears

General Rafael Urdaneta Bridge, Lake Maracaibo

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Wilfredor

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support —Bruce1ee^talk 04:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• oppose blur and not much resolution. Alborzagros (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. Quality below the bar for architectural photography. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alex Salmond

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 04:40:08 (UTC)

Reason

High quality photo and good EV. Scotland's holding an independence referendum this September and Salmond has been one the main figures of Scottish nationalism in the past 25 years. If Scots vote for independence, his significance will rise even more in the history of the British Isles.

Articles in which this image appears

Alex Salmond

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Scottish Government

• Support as nominator --Երևանցի ^talk 04:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• oppose low quality--Alborzagros (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak oppose What is this about?--Theparties (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is what about? --Երևանցի ^talk 17:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This? --Theparties (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What wrong with it? You might wanna elaborate on that. --Երևանցի ^talk 23:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know what exactly is happening here and why this is important.--Theparties (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have clearly explained what is happening. Please take your time to read the caption. --Երևանցի ^talk 18:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your caption is hardly a neutral and factual explanation of the picture... J Milburn (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. --Երևանցի ^talk 23:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose — ZZZzzzz. Sca (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. Great composition, but the lighting isn't ideal. J Milburn (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anal Bleaching

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 06:34:40 (UTC)

A photograph illustrating the results of anal bleaching, one of the most trendy and curious cosmetic procedures.

Reason

An exceptional image that vividly illustrates subject matter. Image is professional quality, high resolution, allowing very detailed inspection. Model is pristine. Photo composition and lighting are superb. Compares very favorably to other anogenital photos on wikipedia.

Articles in which this image appears

Anal_bleaching

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Nordela

• Support as nominator --Greg Comlish (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• No. Great image, great asshole, no to front-page exposure. Call me a prude. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If this can be featured without being frontpaged, I withdraw my objection. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. WP:NOTCENSORED. This is not obscene in the legal sense, it is not even particularly erotic, although of course tastes vary. And it is a striking and excellent image of its kind. DES ^(talk) 23:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose The image is an extract from File:Show Butt.jpg (part of a series copied from Flickr) and there is no verification that anal bleaching has occurred—the image has been tagged since October 2013 with "There is no evidence or source whatsoever that this anus has actually been bleached, rather than being naturally light. The creator of this derivate [is] not the author of the original image". The image metadata confirms that photo editing software has been used, however the encyclopedic value of the image relies on it being verifiably illustrative for the article in which it is used. Johnuniq (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment The model in the image is known to be 'Jenni Blaze' a porn star from southern California where anal bleaching is the overwhelming industry standard. Greg Comlish (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Banaue Rice Terraces, Philippines

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 09:35:14 (UTC)

Reason

One of only a few architectural structures in the islands from before the Spanish era to survive until present.

Articles in which this image appears

Banaue Rice Terraces, Banaue, Ifugao

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Cccefalon

• Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak oppose - Clipped highlights in the sky. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Binondo dragon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 09:35:18 (UTC)

Reason

This image shows the culture in Binondo, Manila's Chinatown

Articles in which this image appears

Binondo

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Cccefalon

• Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - Something about the composition here is just very pedestrian, the red part is just so unattractive. pschemp | talk 04:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. I'm afraid I'm not seeing any EV here. Visually interesting, though. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Handmade brooms

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 09:35:21 (UTC)

Reason

Traditional handmade brooms showing culture of the Ifugao

Articles in which this image appears

Broom, handicraft

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Cccefalon

• Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, both high quality and educational as well. — Cirt (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 12:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak oppose. Very Commons-friendly, but I don't really think that this is overflowing with EV. J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Instant change of heart. It's a great photo, so I'll stay neutral. J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Lighting is a bit uneven, but I think that just make the photograph more attractive. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Bellus Delphina ^talk 19:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support like it. Godhulii 1985 (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Banaue Philippines Handmade-brooms-01.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ifugao Tribesman

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 09:35:25 (UTC)

Reason

A man wears traditional Igorot clothing

Articles in which this image appears

Igorot people, Cordillera Administrative Region, Igorot society

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Traditional dress

Creator

Cccefalon

• Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support -- Decent enough quality, with high cultural value. MatGTAM (talk) 5:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• Weak support - Not keen on the shadows, though quality overall is quite nice — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, agree there is strong cultural value here. — Cirt (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support agree with cirt Godhulii 1985 (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I like, between the terraces in the background, the traditional dress, and even the posture of the subject, this has high EV. Good work, Cccefalon! --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • HectorMoffet, if that is a !vote please be explicit so that nobody miscounts when closing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Support, just remember I'm new and still getting the hang of things at FPC --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Banaue Philippines Ifugao-Tribesman-01.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

William Saroyan

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 17:44:36 (UTC)

Reason

Relatively high quality for a 1940 photo.

Articles in which this image appears

William Saroyan, Armenian American

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers

Creator

Al Aumuller, World-Telegram staff photographer

• Support as nominator --Երևանցի ^talk 17:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Lots of visible scratches and the composition and pose is rather awkward and artificial - is he straddling the back of a lounge chair or something? Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jules Verne

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 17:54:02 (UTC)

Reason

An old photograph of a great Frenchman by Nadar nicely restored by users mentioned below.

Articles in which this image appears

Jules Verne

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers

Creator

Nadar (retouched by Jdcollins13, Centpacrr and Quibik)

• Support as nominator --Երևանցի ^talk 17:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak support The topic is nice but the image is a bit too dark.--Theparties (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, interesting wistful look of times gone by. — Cirt (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 12:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, love it. J Milburn (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Solid image, and though the scan is not of as high resolution as our other Nadar pictures, I think this is certainly up to par. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Félix Nadar 1820-1910 portraits Jules Verne (restoration).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hidatsa Dog Dancer

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 22:41:19 (UTC)

Reason

High historic and cultural value. The image shows a Hidatsa Indian man dancing the "Dog Dance" while dressed in traditional dancing regalia. The image refers to the man as Minnetaree, a Mandan name commonly used when referring to Hidatsa people.

Articles in which this image appears

Hidatsa people, Karl Bodmer

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Traditional

Creator

Karl Bodmer

• Support as nominator --MatGTAM (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Interesting. Brandmeister^talk 11:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support edit, assuming the white is its natural color. I'm somewhat surprised that the LoC digitization may not be faithful, but perhaps the paper just faded away or otherwise aged in such manner. Brandmeister^talk 09:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• There's a version with a colour bar that shows it's definitely white paper. That version is otherwise a much worse version, but is enough to check. The LoC is actually really bad about colour. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. Strong degree of educational value. — Cirt (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support culturally important. Support edit.--Theparties (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak oppose While this image deserves promotion in the end, it's fairly obvious something weird is going on with the paper - pink and grey are not natural colours for it; about 99% of lithographs were printed on white paper, and the fraction printed on two-tone paper is insignificant. I'll do an edit. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For the record, it's looking good, just removing some reflections on the dark areas. (Specifically, the red cloth in the lower right of the figure - it has a LOT of white reflection spots, that I'm removing at 800% zoom. But that's the only bit of restoration left.) I could use someone with Photoshop proper to do some final vignetting fixes - Photoshop makes those a lot easier - but the cleanup's almost done. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Edit prepared, support Edit Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support edit - I'm fairly sure we haven't gone too far astray in the restoration, and since the last such sketch was edited before promotion I think we should remain consistent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And I did check it against a copy that had a colour bar. It's reasonably similar to what I got from the colour bar. Not exact, but then, the copy with the colour bar is really bad, and there's a tendency for that to lead to reduced colour fidelity, even with a bar. It's easier with a better scan, of course. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support edit Looks great to me, the colours are much brighter and the white background looks much better and authentic to the original. Thanks. MatGTAM (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support edit, I agree it looks much better. Nice work! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Edit - great restoration work by Adam and Crisco -- Godot13 (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Moenitarri warrior in the costume of the dog danse 0056v.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grimsel Pass

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 23:20:22 (UTC)

Reason

a high resolution image incl. a nice view of this area

Articles in which this image appears

Grimsel Pass

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support --Godot13 (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Qualified support — Suggest tighter crop from right to bring more detail into focus. Sca (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The right side is a part from the Grimsel pass too! It shows the right mountain wall. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ach, so.... Sca (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

.... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Crop is fine to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Quite striking. — Cirt (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Stunning- the only thing that strikes me is that there isn't actually much road on show! J Milburn (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Blick auf den Grimselsee und den Raeterichsbodensee 0981.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Manuel L. Quezon 2

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 23:24:37 (UTC)

Reason

A high quality image of Manuel L. Quezon, second president of the Philippines. The last nomination fell one support short, but I'm fairly certain that this image is up to snuff.

Articles in which this image appears

Manuel L. Quezon, List of Presidents of the Philippines, Commonwealth of the Philippines, Quezon City

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Office of War Information; restored by Chris Woodrich

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support as per nom. Mattximus (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support missed it the first time.--Godot13 (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support this should have made it.--Theparties (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per my comment last time Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, as before. J Milburn (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. High quality image of a deceased politician. Educational. — Cirt (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support --///EuroCarGT 00:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Manuel L. Quezon (November 1942).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noël Coward

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 08:57:22 (UTC)

Reason

High quality picture of a notable playwright (with a featured article at that!) by a notable photographer, at resolution big enough to make a poster out of. As this was a posed shot, I'm fairly certain the flower and glass of (?) are deliberate. Since they just block the sleeve, it's not a big deal in my opinion.

Articles in which this image appears

Noël Coward, Allan Warren, Poets' Corner, Binkie Beaumont

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers

Creator

Allan Warren (User:Allan warren)

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Glad to see Allan uploading at higher-res, and without the compression as he used to. (Glad to see him uploading at all, of course--his work is invaluable.) Chick Bowen 04:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support EV and good quality.--Alborzagros (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support high EV and good quality. --AdmrBoltz 18:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Bellus Delphina ^talk 10:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support -- I really like this one. It captures something about Noël Coward. Great work, Allan warren! --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, per Alborzagros, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, excellent stuff. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment I might question the colour balance, but it's not atypical of older photographs. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Very strong oppose - please do not promote this until this can be discussed. The original image's colours are these: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/0/08/20110430101425!Noel_Coward_Allan_warren.jpg They were edited, without any obvious reason, at the same time the higher-resolution copy was uploaded. That means that the strange blue-cast skin tones aren't due to fading of 70s filmstock, but are user error caused by the darkest part of the image being on a blue jacket. It's an easy mistake to have happen if you trust autolevels. It's also been cropped a little bit, but I don't mind that. That said, I think that a fix is possible, see Edit 1. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For the record, I'm happy to support the edit Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: I agree with this analysis by Adam Cuerden, above. I'd Support the edited version. — Cirt (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support edit - Good catch, edit looks good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support edit - Ya! Agree with Adam - Bellus Delphina ^talk 16:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support edit. --AdmrBoltz 16:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Noel Coward Allan warren edit 1.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dome of the Rock

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 00:59:10 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, High quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Dome of the Rock (on 10+ other wikipedias)

FP category for this image

Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Godot13

• Support as nominator --Godot13 (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Highly important cultural icon.--Theparties (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - Pretty amazing photo, however the little adjacent structure on the right is cut off. ///EuroCarGT 01:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it is unfortunate. This was as far back as I could go to avoid a large tour group (100+) behind me.-Godot13 (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still pretty nice, I'll support. ///EuroCarGT 02:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support - Very nice. Don't mind the adjacent structure being cut off. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Bellus Delphina ^talk 10:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Palestine-2013(2)-Jerusalem-Temple Mount-Dome of the Rock (SE exposure).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grand Canyon Panorama

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 02:10:10 (UTC)

Reason

A high resolution (12,082 × 3,029) panoramic shot of the Grand Canyon. The colours are bright, vivid and highly detailed.

Articles in which this image appears

Grand Canyon

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

commons:User:Lbolsius

• Support as nominator --///EuroCarGT 02:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, a most striking image. — Cirt (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tasman Lake tour boat

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 08:50:54 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Tasman Lake

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Avenue

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support wow Godhulii 1985 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. This one's got the wow factor right here. — Cirt (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Really nice Bellus Delphina ^talk 10:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - I like it! Alborzagros (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Tour boat among the icebergs on Tasman Lake.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allie Mae Burroughs

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 09:08:56 (UTC)

Reason

Iconic image, that was to become a symbol of the Great Depression. One of the most famous photos by one of the most notable social photographers, Walker Evans. Displayed at the permanent collection of Cleveland Museum of Art. The scan is of good resolution and quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Walker Evans, Cleveland Museum of Art, Farm Security Administration, Social realism, 1930s

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Walker Evans (uploaded by MarkSweep)

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support — An iconic Walker Evans pic. Sca (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - High resolution, good quality, and surprisingly few (if any) obvious dust spots or hairs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support --Theparties (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support ///EuroCarGT 22:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Iconic image. Educational. — Cirt (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 12:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support -- Godot13 (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Allie Mae Burroughs print.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notre-Dame Cathedral Basilica, Ottawa

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 13:37:16 (UTC)

Reason

HQ picture.

Articles in which this image appears

Notre-Dame Cathedral Basilica, Ottawa

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors

Creator

Sergiu.dumitriu

• Support as nominator --Jaqeli (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment — Image is difficult for the viewer to 'enter' due to lack of light/dark contrast. Also appears to be slightly crooked. Sca (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose left side tilted, top has a white stripe and the bottom crop feels somewhat random. --ELEKHH^T 04:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I've added the original version for consideration. Brandmeister^talk 08:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support - This photo (the lower one) shows a very complex mid 19th-century Neo-Gothic decorative scheme in immense detail. It is not easy to find a photo of an interior as complex as this one, in which all the intricacies of the architectonic carvings can be seen, and the stained glass windows are actually sharp!!. In terms of describing the architecture/ interior design of the period, this photo has real encyclopedic value, despite the fact that (as Sca has pointed out) it has shortcomings as a piece of "art photography". Amandajm (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NROL-39

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 10:11:12 (UTC)

Reason

Unique image. Historic/Notable (extensive discussion of image in RSes). It "illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more". It's a highly-evocative and extremely effective work of art.

Articles in which this image appears

National Reconnaissance Office, NROL-39, List of NRO Launches

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others or perhaps Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Drawings

Creator

National Reconnaissance Office, US Government

• Support as nominator. As Jon Stewart said: "Last week, the National Reconnaissance Office launched this spy satellite into orbit; And the logo they chose for their spy rocket-- this is real-- a giant octopus sucking the face off North America". It's an genuinely exquisite piece of propaganda art. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Supporting the original The .svg doesn't seem to be 1:1 with the original Godhulii 1985 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support original - This is cool. That the patch has had critical commentary about it just sweetens the deal. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Agree with rationale by Crisco 1492, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support (original) good EV, great critical commentary. --AdmrBoltz 18:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Agree with Crisco 1492. This is a really amusing picture, yet creepy at the same time. One can only wonder how such a strange choice made it through. At least the government spooks have a sense of humor. Sn1pe! ^{(talk)(edits)} 02:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that I'm not sure which image should be featured. Both the original and vector are amazing in their own way. The original is notable (see HectorMoffet's comments above), while the vector is a fine reproduction of said original and is an example of epic vector art. (Although this probably isn't really relevant) Sn1pe! ^{(talk)(edits)} 02:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support original, oppose vector Only one of these was actually used: Vectorization adds additional artistic decisions that aren't necessarily in the original artistic design. The colours are different, there's some realizations, and so on. I've seen this realized in paint or print a few times - by official sources - and it just doesn't look like the vector. Amongst other things: The font for "NROL-39" is obviously different; the latitude lines are missing on the globe, the gradient shading seems to be different - notably, the highlight ont he rightmost leg is different from any other version, and the octopus' shading seems a bit more slapdash than it is on other versions. The arm detail matches neither the patch nor any JPEG version; Some shapes have changed - for example, the dark triangle-like shapes moving towards the tentacle from the eye are three in number on the patch, and two on the vector, etc. Vectors are great when there isn't an official realization - coats of arms, etc - but aren't for everything. That said, if we could get a high-res JPEG to vectorise - a FOIA request should get that, if nothing else - I think this could all be fixed, but given the choice between a vector from a low-resolution JPEG, or a patch, I'll take the patch. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Nrol-39.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moorman photograph of JFK assassination

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 18:51:50 (UTC)

Reason

This polaroid photograph by Mary Moorman is not of the best technical quality, but its historical value is immense and was achieved though astonishing luck (albeit unfortunate in context).

Articles in which this image appears

Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Mary Moorman, Badge Man

FP category for this image

History/American history

Creator

Mary Moorman

• Support as nominator --JJARichardson (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - sorry! At full resolution I can barely see what the image is about. --Jakob (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment You can make out what's happening if you look at JFK at the motorcade. There are no other photographs of the event like this one. JJARichardson (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ashmont–Mattapan Line PCC streetcar

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 21:25:21 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image of an iconic streetcar as it is used today

Articles in which this image appears

Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land

Creator

Derek Yu on Flickr

• Support as nominator --wctaiwan (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak support - Rather nice, though the clipped highlights spoil it for me a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support good EV, good shot. Apparently the conductor didn't want to be photographed :p --AdmrBoltz 18:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roaring Creek in wintertime

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 22:41:01 (UTC)

Reason

I think this is of at least a decent technical standard. It is 3264 by 1840 pixels, so no size issues. Like I said, it is certainly a decent image and streams are underrepresented among FPs. It is under a CC-BY-SA license. This image adds encyclopedic value to Roaring Creek (Pennsylvania), where it is currently the only image. It wasn't created for the purpose of supporting original research. It has an accurate name, description and location data. Finally, the image has not been altered from its original form. All in all, I think it's a great image and it would be great if it became featured.

Articles in which this image appears

Roaring Creek (Pennsylvania)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Jakec (King jakob c 2 on Commons)

• Support as nominator ----Jakob (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - Looks tilted, and the tops of the trees are cut off, making this picture seem more busy than it has to be. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Crisco 1492: I have corrected the tilt, I think. --Jakob (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose The trees being cut off really takes away from the image, I also wonder if there is a better/more telling place along the stream to take a photo, where you can see more than just a little portion of it. Mattximus (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - It would be more encylopedic had it not been covered in ice. Mundane composition. - hahnchen 00:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Hahnchen, Mattximus, and Crisco 1492: Maybe I should try for quality image on Commons instead? --Jakob (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Maybe you should try taking more pictures instead of shopping for awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.132.240 (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scots Monastery, Regensburg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 04:53:03 (UTC)

Reason

High EV providing good overview of the space, excellent level of detail and interesting lighting,

Articles in which this image appears

Scots Monastery, Regensburg

FP category for this image

Interiors

Creator

Richard Bartz

• Support as nominator --ELEKHH^T 04:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Godhulii 1985 (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment, as usual, my negative comment about this type of image is the same. There has been a digital adjustment on the verticals of this picture which has made them parallel. This is an over-compesation for the error caused by the camera lens. The human eye sees things in perspective. When you remove all the vertical perspective, the result is to make the upper part of the picture look as if the elements are splaying outward i.e. the columns and upper wall of this building lean out at the top. The distortion caused by the adjustment is most apparent in the capitals of the two outermost columns which have become oval.

I would like this picture very much more, and find it more useful if the sense of height and perspective was re-introduced by allowing the upper part of the image to taper inward slightly. Amandajm (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do you know this is the case? I disagree completely that it is obvious that verticals have been corrected. It's possible that it has been digitally perspective corrected, but I strongly suspect it hasn't. And the reason why I suspect it hasn't is because the horizon is roughly in the centre of the frame. When this is the case, no correction for the verticals is required because they are already vertical. It's only when you tilt the view upwards or downwards that you introduce leaning verticals. Also, just to correct you on one additional point, even if it were corrected, it would absolutely not be compensation for an error caused by the camera lens. It is a compensation for the reality of rectilinear perspective. The camera lens has absolutely nothing to do with it, except of course that the angle of view through the lens determines the degree to which perspective is a factor, and a wide angle lens is going to result in a larger angle of view. Also, you never responded to my last attempt to discuss with you the norm of correcting vericals in architectural photography. Ensuring that vertical lines are indeed vertical is quite fundamental to this style of photography. You're entitled to dislike this sort of correction, but to crusade against it as you appear to be doing is another thing entirely. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further to Diliff's points, the capitals of the two outermost columns appear unnatural when you zoom in because as this is a static photo the vanishing point does not change as it would if you would be in the church and rotate your eye. For that to occur we would need some VR photography as here. --ELEKHH^T 22:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response - The "horizon" of this photo is not central between the horizontal plane of the floor, and the horizontal plane of the ceiling. It is much closer to the floor. This is because the photographer or the tripod was not half as high as the building. The "horizon" (direct line of the camera's eye) was just a little higher than the top of the front altar (with the white cloth) as you would expect, because the altar is up several steps. From this horizontal both the upper sections of columns and walls, and the lower section would slope inwards slightly. This is the way the eye sees. This perspective is what gives a sense of height and depth to objects.

In old architecture, such as this, architects took into account the visual perspective. The jutting horizontal cornices, the big round carved gilded bosses, the size of the beams, the large size of figures painted on the ceiling, the outward curves entasis on the columns, the slight upward curve of the centre of the floor and many other tricks were used which make the most of the building's natural perspective. One of the most famous examples is the Parthenon. One Wiki Commons contributor took an excellent photo that demonstrated all the curved lines of the building, and then (in typical Wiki-Commons fashion, digitally straightened the building out, thereby rendering his photo totally useless for demonstrating the very thing that makes the Parthenon one of the greatest works of architecture ever created. This obsession with mathematically parallel lines spoils a great number of otherwise excellent photos, because it robs the building in the pictures of their dynamic elements of space, volume, direction and mass. Amandajm (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you've missed my point slightly. I was not commenting on whether the camera was situated half way between the plane of the floor and the plane of the ceiling in terms of elevation, I was talking about the fact that the camera is not significantly tilted upwards or downwards, as evidenced by the fact that the plane of the horizon (you cannot see it, obviously, because it exists beyond the interior space, but you can estimate it). This is what causes verticals to tilt, not the elevation of the camera. Elevation of the camera affects other aspects of perspective but not verticals. As long as the camera remains horizontal, vertical lines stay vertical. You are right that the central point in the image is the top of the altar, which places it slightly above the camera parallel with the horizon, but this is still not an indication of perspective correction in my opinion. It could just as easily be caused by cropping the floor, which has the effect of moving the middle of the image further up, without having any effect on the tilt of verticals. And this, to me, is why this discussion on the 'evils of correcting verticals' is so silly. The human eye never sees a scene the way a photograph captures it because it never absorbs a very wide angle scene in any coherent and consistent way. We scan our eyes around, and build up a mental image comprised of different segments, aspects and details. We don't look up at a column and see it as leaning. It's only leaning relative to the other columns, but we don't see other spatially distant columns simultaneously. We perceive them in our peripheral vision, sure, but our brain doesn't process the perspective in any meaningful way in the periphery. In fact it could be argued that we don't even consciously perceive perspective at all. It's this lack of intuition that meant that it wasn't until the Renaissance that we actually discovered how to draw scenes in such a way that took perspective into account. Here's a thought experiment to prove my point. Go to a church, stand in the middle of the aisle and look straight ahead at the altar. Then slowly scan your eyes up towards the ceiling. Do the columns start progressively leaning inwards? I suggest they don't, even though our eyes have a wide enough field of view for perspective leaning to be significant. However, verticals absolutely do lean when you scan the camera upwards because the camera has a wide field of view but you are looking at the photos with an narrow angle of view that lets you see the perspective clearly with foveal vision. The preoccupation with keeping the verticals leaning, to me, seems more like a desire to keep photos looking as uncorrected photos 'normally' do (a familiarity, if you will), rather than anything to do with what the eyes see natively. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - See adjusted image with vertical perspective returned to it. The image immediately becomes less flat, and looks like a place in which you could walk around. Despite the fact that the image has been cropped in the process, and less ceiling is visible, the volume and height has been returned to the building. The presence of the person who is "seeing" has been put back into the image. Amandajm (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting effect you're using there, and I'm sure some will be confused by the curved columns and floor pattern. Back to your previous comment, if you look very slightly downwards than the verticals appear vertical without any magic. While I agree with you in principle that sometimes PC can spoil images, I think in this case the image gives a good sense of the spatial depth, and the chairs, steps and table give a sense of scale, including height. As Romanesque architecture is rather massive and stable, I think perspective correction does not spoil it. Ultimately any photo is just one of many possible abstractions of reality, and choosing a perspective that shows verticals appear vertical has been and remains common in architectural perspective drawing. --ELEKHH^T 06:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I think the introduction of curvature of the horizontal lines is more of an issue than anything that was 'corrected' in the edit. Not to mention that a significant amount of the scene has been effectively cropped. It looks to me to be a simple barrel distortion effect. I'm interested to know in what situation perspective correction does spoil an image? The main thing I can think of is simply when it introduces so much distortion at the periphery that the subject looks grotesquely warped. I have been guilty of pushing it too far with some of my images, and I am the first to admit that, but as long as the angle of view is not ridiculously wide, I honestly don't feel that it spoils an image. I feel it actually returns a more accurate sense of how we perceive an interior space, because as I said above, I don't believe we perceive leaning verticals the way photographs portray. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I think it can be distracting when the periphery attracts undue attention. It sometimes happens with tall buildings and tight crops like this when a vertical building edge or a narrow strip of sky is close to the picture's edge, the perfectly vertical lines are reinforced by the frame, and strengthens the visual effect Amandajm is talking about that the building is perceived 'as if splaying outward'. --ELEKHH^T 23:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Per Elekhh: "Ultimately any photo is just one of many possible abstractions of reality". Too much fuss being made here and I fail to see the supposed benefits of the alternative version. -- Colin°^Talk 12:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Agree with Colin. Regardless of the perspective correction discussion, it's clearly a quality architectural photo of the interior. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Schottenkirche St. Jakob Innenraum Unten.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 14:07:07 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution and quality, interesting painting; I am unaware of any of the artist's other work being featured

Articles in which this image appears

The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things,

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Hieronymus Bosch

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support ///EuroCarGT 21:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak oppose Some inscriptions in the lower left circle are illegible at full size (at least to me). Btw, his The Garden of Earthly Delights is featured. Brandmeister^talk 10:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks for the info. Fair point about the inscriptions; any estimate on their size in RL? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Considering that the painting's height is 120 cm, it seems that their height is about 1-2 cm at best. Perhaps the scanner should have high dpi or something like that since even the 4000x3411 version doesn't render them readable to me. Brandmeister^talk 13:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support- I thin it unlikely that a better image of this particular artwork will be produced for some time. The painting is under glass, which makes it hard to photograph without reflection. There is some minor compromise to clarity in the four outer roundels, most noticeable in the one with text.The text itself, being painted in white (more granular paint) over the darker (and therefore shinier smoother) surfaces, is the part that is most subject to damage by abrasion to the finished work. Amandajm (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per Amandajm--Godot13 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, per Amandajm. I would prefer higher resolution, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak support.--Theparties (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Hieronymus Bosch- The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things.JPG --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Louis XVI

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 23:46:41 (UTC)

Reason

There are several scans of this painting, but this one has the highest resolution and seems to be the closest to the original colors (since its from the Google Art Project).

Articles in which this image appears

Louis XVI of France, French Revolution, List of French monarchs

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty and nobility

Creator

Antoine-François Callet

• Support as nominator --Երևանցի ^talk 23:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support ///EuroCarGT 02:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Please. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support --Theparties (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support — Last French king. Sca (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. — Cirt (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Alborzagros (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Antoine-François Callet - Louis XVI, roi de France et de Navarre (1754-1793), revêtu du grand costume royal en 1779 - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rhinotia hemistictus

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2014 at 10:24:24 (UTC)

Reason

EV & HQ

Articles in which this image appears

Rhinotia hemistictus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Spongepuppy

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, as high quality and high encyclopedic value. — Cirt (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support nice --Ebertakis (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support --Theparties (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, useable, although to be honest the crop feels too tight. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Rhinotia hemistictus (Long Nosed Weevil).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Common Blue

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2014 at 10:59:22 (UTC)

Reason

HQ and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Common Blue

FP category for this image

Creator

Lviatour

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. It's not very detailed or clear photo, and the colours are quite faded. I've taken a photo of a very similar butterfly (I self-identified it as an Adonis Blue rather than Common Blue but it's possible I'm wrong and it is indeed the Common Blue) and I think mine is significantly better. It has the same issues of focus at the tips of the wings but is otherwise a far more detailed image and a better specimen. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• If File:Polyommatus bellargus - mating.jpg is Polyommatus bellargus; probaly your's too. See the difference in marks on the wing border. Jee 12:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose as per Diliff's stunning photograph. After comparing, it's very hard to support nom. And just as a personal bias, I love seeing pairs (male and female) of these photos nominated when there is significant sexual dimorphism. Mattximus (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Princess Ida

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2014 at 07:24:38 (UTC)

• 
  1. "I can tell a woman's age in half a minute—and I do!"
• 
  2. "Must we, till then, in prison cell be thrust?"
• 
  3. Enter Princess, reading.
• 
  4. Enter the "Daughters of the Plough," bearing Luncheon.
• 
  5. Frontispiece
• 
  6. The Gate yields. Hildebrand and Soldiers rush in.
• 
  7. "Though I am but a girl, / Defiance thus I hurl."
• 
  8. "Where are your rifles, pray?"

Reason

A fine set of images, taken from the first edition of the work. This book contains four operas, but I'm going to nominate them separately for ease of review, and because they're a bit of a nightmare to sort out. There is some half-toning, but the originals apparently haven't been available to the public since the 1960s, and are broken up and scattered. Now, we don't - at this time - have an article on the book itself. I'm working on that, but want to get my sources together first, and that will, unfortunately, take a while. Hopefully by the next set from this book. If necessary, I'm fine with breaking up the set; I think 1, at the very least, should pass without question?

Articles in which this image appears

1 and 5 are used in Princess Ida, I've put 6 in Gilbert and Sullivan (admittedly just now), and all are in William Russell Flint, an article that, until now, has had major problems with bad fair use images.

FP category for this image

Literary illustrations is possible, but I suspect Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Culture,_entertainment,_and_lifestyle/Theatre is where most would expect them.

Creator

William Russell Flint, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support set. Nice to see you back, Adam. Colour halftones must have been a nightmare to sort out. My own efforts with black and white weren't all that good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's actually somewhat easier with very early half-toning. It gets funny spots, and there's scratches, but the rest isn't too bad. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. They seem a tad on the dark side. Is it just me? Kaldari (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's in the original. When I looked carefully at the originals, they were a little dark. I spent a huge amount of time trying to match the exact colours, with reasonable success, I think. Do you want me to reevaluate any in particular? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • They all look pretty dark, but I guess "Daughters of the Plough" especially. If you could double-check them, I would be satisfied with that. Kaldari (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Checking, I'd say they're about right, I'm afraid. If anything, a smidgen light, but I don't think I'll act on that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Well I guess I'll have to support then :) Kaldari (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment — I can't imagine all eight images as a TFP. Sca (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally speaking, either one is chosen as a main image, or there's a script that can show different images throughout the day. We had a 20-image set last year for Puck of Pook's Hill. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This is one of those things that readers don't know or care about, but I (or whoever handles POTD when these run in about a year and a half [assuming they pass]) have to worry about. It's very doable. We've also done montages, such as with the Extermination of Evil set (Howcheng set that one up). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment- Re FP- these have little to do with Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Culture,_entertainment,_and_lifestyle/Theatre. Despite the fact that they illustrate plays, they have have not been produced for anything to do with theatrical production. They are not theatre posters, and do not belong to the scripts that actors would use. They are essentially book illustrations, for home reading and fit into exactly the same category as the contemporary Edmund Dulac's illustrations to "Arabian Night's, Kai Nielsens illustrations to "East of the Sun and West of the Moon" and Arthur Rackham's "Peter Pan and Wendy". If there is a class for "Literary illustrations", then that is where they belong. Amandajm (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There's a large number of Shakespeare works in the Theatre category that likewise don't come from productions; I think people looking for illustrations of a play will not make the distinction you're making, and would be very surprised to find these in the Literary illustrations category. Given the categories always have ambiguity, I'm pretty sure fitting unambiguously into them shouldn't be an FP criterion. We'd lose too many good images. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I would go for a much more encyclopedic degree of accuracy in the cataloguing. I would put photos of productions, and theatrical posters and the like under "Theatre" and everything in this class under illustration. Where do you draw the line between an illustration to J.M. Barrie's novel "Peter Pan" and J.M. Barrie's play of "Peter Pan"? Likewise all the countless 19th century oil paintings based on Shakespearian subjects are not substantially different to all the similar pictures based on Boccaccio's "Decameron", Milton's "Paradise Lost" or Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales". They are first and foremost narrative paintings that are about the characters and stories of the plays. They are not theatrical, in the sense of being associated with the theatre. In fact, in common with all the other works that I have mentioned, most people who know Shakespeare's plays well, know them from reading them rather than from seeing theatrical productions. If book Illustrations for publications and paintings based on the subjects are usually categorised under "Theatre" then this needs to be re-thought and the works sorted into a different category. The might belong under a category named "Shakespeare" but they do not belong under the category "Theatre". These present works do not belong under "Theatre" either. They belong under "Book illustration". Amandajm (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • In any case, this is getting off-topic, as the categorization is, in the end, up tot he closer, and has nothing to do with the FP. If you want to discuss it further, let's do it on the talk page. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Agree with Crisco 1492, above, that it is good to see such high quality contributions from Adam Cuerden, again. Hope all is well by both of you, — Cirt (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support- though I agree that the colours are rather dark. My observation of illustrated books of this date is that the intensity of colour in the prints can vary from book to book, and sometimes within a book. Amandajm (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That is, indeed true. However, not having access to a second copy, I can only judge off of my own. =) If I get to go to Wikimania this year, I think I might well bring my copy and see what people think. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 1.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 2.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 3.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 4.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 5 (Frontispiece).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 6.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 7.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 8.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I placed it in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Literary illustrations. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neil Armstrong after moonwalk

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2014 at 23:36:32 (UTC)

Reason

A striking high quality portrait with immense historical significance.

Articles in which this image appears

Neil Armstrong

FP category for this image

People/Science and engineering or Space/Getting there

Creator

Buzz Aldrin

• Support as nominator --JJARichardson (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Iconic. High EV, High quality image. Also, SCIENCE!!! — Cirt (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Wow-- this has to be one of the most historic images in human history. Good nom! --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • HectorMoffet, if that is a !vote please be explicit so that nobody miscounts when closing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Well, it was my way of saying Support, but I'm new so I don't know the criteria as well as others. :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment — Interesting historical shot, but could be cropped more tightly. I want to tell the photographer to take One Small Step forward... Sca (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have uploaded a cropped version and included it in the nom. JJARichardson (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to quibble, but suggest taking a bit more off the top, which is outta focus anyway. (At full res. Armstrong's stubbly face is interesting.) Sca (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is that better? I've focused on the face while avoiding cropping out the NASA logo on his spacesuit. JJARichardson (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update - I've decided to change my nomination to the cropped version. JJARichardson (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support: I like it — good work! Sca (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note to closer: the votes above JJARichardson's "Update" above relate to the image now labeled "alternative." Chick Bowen 00:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support ALT--Theparties (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note — The closeup version labeled original above is actually the 2nd cropped version, i.e. the one we're talking about at this point, per nominator JJARichardson. Sca (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except that Cirt's and HectorMoffet's votes are about the other one. This is why changing your nomination in the middle was not the best idea. Chick Bowen 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, one is not allowed to change one's mind? Sca (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Sure one is. One just shouldn't change the image marked "original", otherwise it will look like one is misrepresenting previous opinions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confusing semantics, all right — That's why I added the note above. Sca (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment I was being bold and following Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, but I'm sorry for causing any confusion. JJARichardson (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, you were simply following the admonition "to boldly go where no man has gone before." Sca (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the future JJARichardson, when you upload the new version for consideration, leave the original upload as "original" and any new versions as "ALT 1", "ALT 2", etc., so that this type of semantic confusion doesn't happen. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Alternative - I don't like the cropped version; the module in the background adds value IMO. --CyberXRef^☎ 04:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note to closer I have marked the two as A and B. At the time that JJARichardson, Cirt, and HectorMoffet cast support votes, only B was visible, so were all clearly voting for that one. It is unclear which version Sca is supporting, and it is unclear whether JJARichardson still supports B. Theparties and CyberXRef support B, so assuming that JJARichardson didn't pull his support for that option, B is the version with consensus to promote. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, I was supporting A. Sca (talk)

Comment -- I support B. I regret I didn't include the alt in the conventional way, but I was swayed by enthusiasm! JJARichardson (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support B, Oppose A - The focus on this is not a portrait of Neil Armstrong, it's Armstrong after the moonwalk. We need enough context to establish the location. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Neil Armstrong.jpg -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stefan Heym

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2014 at 03:08:52 (UTC)

Reason

This is featured on commons and has high encyclopedic value

Articles in which this image appears

Stefan Heym

FP category for this image

People

Creator

Antonisse, Marcel / Anefo

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - Face behind him is distracting. Why is this black and white when it was taken in 1982? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If it is the face, can't we process that out. If it is the black and white, nothing we can do.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • See WP:FP? #8: "Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation.". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support
  • Comment- The image is in back and white because it is an image that is dependent on texture for effect, not upon colour. Crisco 1492, as an artist and photographer, I find the fact that you are asking that question about a black and white image very disturbing. Black and White is a valid choice made by the photographer as artist.
  • The background image gives depth and context to the foreground face. Amandajm (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I am not addressing this as an artistic work, but as an encyclopedic photograph (not everything at Wikipedia's FPC is about the photograph as a work of art, Amanda, and that question was rhetorical anyways). Skin tone, eye colour, and hair colour are among the most standard requirements for identifying an individual, none of which are depicted here. Considering how common colour photography was in the 1980s, opposing black and white in preference of a colour photograph is entirely acceptable. You'll find that many other b&w portraits from the 1970s up have had a hard time at FPC (though some do pass).
    • As for the face giving depth and context, it's entirely doable without a face (which has distracting lines and tones which do not contrast very well with another face). I much prefer the use of the cabinet in Warren's picture of Coward (below). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • In response, I would argue that in a bald grey-headed ageing man with dark eyes and bushy eyebrows, skin tone, eye colour, and hair colour are not among the most standard requirements for identifying the person as an individual. Colour is significantly less important as a person ages, which is the reason that many portrait photos of older people are in Black and white. The structure, form and texture of the features are always significant in portraiture, and become increasingly significant as the person ages. This picture conveys those elements extremely well, and, moreover, conveys "character". If this forum has been in the habit of rejecting portrait photos on the grounds that they are in black and white, then you need to reconsider your values. Would you reject an 19th century engraved portrait because it was an engraving, on the grounds that you would prefer a 19th century watercolour? Amandajm (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Are you seriously comparing two different mediums (apples and oranges) to two different varieties of one medium (Macintosh and Pink Lady)? Wow.
        • Yes, detail on the face is important (and the possibilities of fine grain B&W were obviously a consideration when this photograph was taken). Hair colour may have less value for identification as a person ages (assuming they do not dye it), but that is not to say all colour loses value. Again, we are not debating the value of this photograph as an artistic work. We are discussing it in the context for being featured on the English Wikipedia, which emphasizes encyclopedic work. There are many, myself included, who find black & white lacking. Don't get me wrong though, if there weren't a distracting face in the background, I'd have likely stayed neutral (and quiet) or voted a weak support (worth half a !vote). I try not to oppose simply because an image is B&W.
        • As for "If this forum has been in the habit of rejecting portrait photos on the grounds that they are in black and white,", I said they generally have trouble. I never said they are routinely rejected. Many just get more opposes than colour images would have. Stop putting words in my mouth. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak oppose. While I do actually like this photo, like Chris, I am not keen on the greyscale; it's something we should be avoiding in recent photographs. J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • J Milburn is 1982 really considered recent?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Recent" is always relative. Relative to the development and widespread adoption of colour photography, I consider 1982 "recent". J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support — Sharp image of an artistic face full of character. Sca (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - I like the picture, it's very clear. I don't think the fact that it's grayscale hurts it a slight bit. --CyberXRef^☎ 03:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Black and white film was still used in 1982 for a lot of things, this doesn't look like a mere desaturated image. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Stefan Heym (1982).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grant Park (Chicago)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2014 at 03:21:39 (UTC)

Reason

This image is featured on commons and has high encyclopedic value across many wikipedias

Articles in which this image appears

Grant Park (Chicago)

FP category for this image

Places

Creator

Poco a poco

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Lede image in the English Wikipedia article, colours look nice, etc. However, did Diego forget to calibrate his camera when coming to the US? It's hard to believe he got that kind of lighting at 10:30 PM, in Chicago, in October. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't even usually adjust for daylight savings let alone trips across the pond.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, Lovely picture. I like the combinations of different buildings and foliage, and the way the pic is framed by the trees on one side and the curve of the path on the other. Amandajm (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, obviously high quality as featured on Commons. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support The buildings and scenery are the perfect match in this photo. ///EuroCarGT 21:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
•  Comment: I also like this one, and agree with you that there is a kind of harmony between the buildings and the foliage. Crisco: yes, unfortunately I forgot. It happened a few times and sometimes I realized it just one day later. The local time was 3:41 pm Poco² 10:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks, I'll update the page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Grant Park, Chicago, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 03.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Batad Village

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2014 at 09:58:24 (UTC)

Reason

The image shows the unique lifestyle in a village in the Batad Rice Terraces.

Articles in which this image appears

Ifugao, List of World Heritage in Danger, Agriculture in the Philippines, Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Cccefalon

• Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, striking and high resolution. Also, helps promote WP:WORLDVIEW. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Jee 17:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Amandajm (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - Right now I'm not seeing much EV, as the article is a tad over-illustrated. Technically it's very nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Banaue Philippines Batad-Rice-Terraces-02.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Manila Central Post Office

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2014 at 09:58:20 (UTC)

Reason

This image of the Manila Central Post Office symbolizes the decay that has plagued Manila as well as its former glory

Articles in which this image appears

Pasig River, Manila Central Post Office

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Cccefalon

• Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, beautiful image, nice perspective lines. — Cirt (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment — Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Sca (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Response - I did not nominate this because it is "beautiful" but because it is "ugly". Sometimes to see the truth that is where you look.--Theparties (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Looks a little dark, but then, not every day is bright and sunny. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Not enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Boxer Codex

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2014 at 11:44:47 (UTC)

Reason

Best image available from the text, the Boxer Codex, a late 16th century art book.

Articles in which this image appears

Boxer Codex, Filipino People, History of the Philippines

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Philipandrew

• Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, certainly most educational and encyclopedic. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support,--In the name effort and Art — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.181.198 (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - Visible JPG artefacting, looks like it was cleaned but ... definitely digital manipulation (that font at the bottom... no way it's a 16th century font) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, priestess is spelled incorrectly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose- I have no idea what the "chart" was created for, when it was created or why. The original images of the Boxer Codex, as they appear on the article's page, are beautiful and interesting. This image, combining figures from the codex, is far less valuable than the codex illustrations themselves. Amandajm (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose, for the weird text. J Milburn (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amanita citrina

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2014 at 16:48:19 (UTC)

Reason

HQ and EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Amanita citrina

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Fungi

Creator

The High Fin Sperm Whale

• Support as nominator --ArionEstar (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - Underexposed, background is too distracting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose as above. J Milburn (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - Soft, bad separation from the background. --Ebertakis (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose — Dullsville. Sca (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kingdom of Greater Armenia

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2014 at 22:52:23 (UTC)

Reason

Nicely made vector map of high encyclopedic value.

Articles in which this image appears

Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity), Roman–Parthian War of 58–63

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps

Creator

Cplakidas

• Support as nominator --Երևանցի ^talk 22:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Agree that it has high encyclopedic value. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. I was a little shocked Mtskheta is spelt correctly, but, as it is, I see no reason whatsoever not to support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kudos to Cplakidas, one of the greatest users I know. Misspellings of geographic names of this region are quite common, but how else would they spell Mtskheta? --Երևանցի ^talk 18:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, it's that I've never seen the name before, and it has five consonants in a row, so - as I do not know much about the languages of that part of the world - it looked wrong. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see. In reality it's 3 consecutive consonants (m, ts, kh), but since English doesn't have those letters, they are converted into two-letters each. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyway, my ignorance of Georgian aside, it's a fantastic map. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support - Solid SVG map. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Late to the party.--Theparties (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment How precise are these boundaries? My concern is that representing them with double continuous lines makes them appear very precise, while in fact might be less so, but I am not familiar with the history.

In terms of graphics I think the map could be clearer if the labels of cities were placed within the territory to which they belong if there is pace for that. For instance the map shows Amida to be in Sophene, but the label was placed in the KoA, although there is enough space in Sophene to display it there. Also I don't see why overlapping labels across borders when is not necessary, such as in the case of "Doliche". A minor issue: the "200" on the scale bar has a different font size than the "0". --ELEKHH^T 23:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Roman East 50-en.svg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barack Obama with artistic gymnastic McKayla Maroney

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2014 at 02:46:21 (UTC)

Reason

This image is featured on commons and used in two and a half (it is cropped once) articles on WP.

Articles in which this image appears

List of Internet phenomena, McKayla Maroney

FP category for this image

People

Creator

Pete Souza

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support This is awesome.--Theparties (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support This is awesome, and a one-of-a-kind 'historic' image. --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - :-,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose — Cute, but it's a gimmicky posed shot of political figure by a photographer who works for him. Where politicians are concerned, candid shots are much preferred. Sca (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The image is not in Obama's article, but in the gymnasts. This shows her meeting the president, which is generally a decent indication of national recognition (especially when the president copies your signature move!) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine to include it in McKayla Maroney, but I don't think it's appropriate for TFP. Sca (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Featured Picture =/= Picture of the Day. Not all FPs will be POTD, though all POTDs must be FPs. They are different processes. Please familiarize yourself with the distinction. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Not a fully posed shot. We can see distracting moving people behind in the original version. Jee 16:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Strong EV for the McKayla Maroney article and a well-executed photo, and it would also be useful in articles on how modern politicians present themselves. Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. I don't know. It feels a bit twee... We seem to love showing Obama left, right and centre, and this just feels like more of the same. I'm not necessarily convinced that her being next to Obama is actually that great- she's not a politician- I'd rather see her with a coach. J Milburn (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment as the image is also in List of Internet phenomena, I'd argue that this is not emphasizing Obama as a person, but the president as an office, showing how far the meme went. Same goes for sporting: meme, not athletics. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with User:J Milburn. Practically any photo of a sitting president (with practically anyone else) emphasizes that person. This pic, basically a PR shot, is just too cute — "twee" indeed. (Disclaimer: The preceding opinion has nothing to do with my politics.) Sca (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Showcases an Olympic athlete, a President of the USA and an Internet meme. That's more EV than a featured clothes iron. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • But what a clothes iron! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Reply[reply]
    • Is that the same as a clothes horse? Sca (talk)
      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electric_steam_iron.jpg Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • That's the one. Colin did a pretty good job for product photography there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Reply[reply]
          • Indeed, deservedly a POTY candidate. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support If allowed I would upload a meme here mentioning that: I haven't supported this picture and mckayla is not impressed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godhulii 1985 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, not really eye-catching or high quality but quite a good photo. ///EuroCarGT 05:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Barack Obama with artistic gymnastic McKayla Maroney 2.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fiona Kimm

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2014 at 07:18:35 (UTC)

Reason

HQ & EV

Articles in which this image appears

Fiona Kimm

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Wickuser

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose for now. Stunning portrait, but we're going to need to see OTRS permission; this is an image that Kimm uses as a publicity photo. J Milburn (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Even if we get the license out of the way what about her publicity rights? Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Conditional Support until license issues clarified. Tomer T (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose until license is established to be correct. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Khost children in 2010 (Afghanistan)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2014 at 07:41:49 (UTC)

Reason

HQ & EV

Articles in which this image appears

Afghanistan and Demography of Afghanistan

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Staff Sgt. Andrew Smith (U.S Army Photographer)

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak support The photo is nice, not sure about the focus, if there is one. Oppose Boring.--Theparties (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support — Poignant. Sca (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak support — I like the image. The focus is obviously the girl in the middle. She is reasonably sharp and the straight into-the-camera look while she grasps and partly hides herself behind the boy next to her really makes a beautiful photo that urges me to read an article about these kids. The problem is, the EV is thin and spread widely. Both the Afghanistan and the Demography of Afghanistan articles use the image in a mere table as an example of Pashtun people. The latter also uses a crop of the picture in this image that is also used in a few other articles like Pashtunistan and Pashtun_diaspora. Since these kids cannot really be identified as Pashtun people by the reader (no traditional dress or similar characteristics) their EV lies in their story, i.e. how they got to Camp Clark where this photo was taken. Without an article on Camp Clark or on the US-operation that got these kids there the EV is limited. --Ebertakis (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, agree it is poignant. — Cirt (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak oppose per Ebertakis - limited EV. Tomer T (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. I'm also failing to see any real EV here. A great press photo, not so great for an encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose children in 2009.jpg&diff=next&oldid=66863189 Trying to eliminate their parents, bringing them to the Refugee camps, giving them food, cloths and medicines, publishing shameless charity works... What is featurable here? Jee 08:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]