Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2024 at 04:55:17 (UTC)
Reason
It's very high quality, even if a large number of fine scratches made it a nightmare to restore.
We do have an FP of him, File:T Roosevelt.jpg but it's barely used anymore, and I'd say that, while the restoration is fine, this is simply a better photo. Don't think we need to delist the old one, but I leave that up to others to decide after this passes.
Articles in which this image appears
Theodore Roosevelt + like 30 more, more if you count the 3x4 crop (used because it better goes along side the terrible image we have of his vice-president in a few articles on elections; Did check, didn't find a better image for Alton B. Parker, so it's probably best to cater a bit. Compare [1][2])
Support. MER-C 19:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – At the time of this comment, this image does not appear on the Theodore Roosevelt article. Another editor is trying to reinstate a different version, which is black and white, and cropped. --Wow (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ech. Just because someone didn't document their changes and passed off a desaturated version as an original is no reason to use it. In any case, it's stable in every other article. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 14:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 20:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it is a good example. If you look at a benchmark of excellence - say Filippo Lippi - take a look at the faces and you will see what I mean. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between a manuscript illustration and large-scale paintings, though. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 22:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2024 at 00:45:28 (UTC)
Reason
It is a high quality image, it has multiple articles featuring it, it also is the official portrait of an Emperor, that being Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia. Is among Wikipedia's best work.
Comment: It's odd that we have a non-free image in an article about a film that is itself PD; could I encourage you to look into that, Yann? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a better quality on the Net. The earlier version should be undeleted and moved to Commons. Yann (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: By which I mean, too light, too dark, needs adjustment in the lower end to bring out detail, too saturated? There's a lot of possibilities. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 05:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks a bit yellow to me. Yann (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presuming the original is accurate - and it's a museum scan - I've readjusted accordingly, allowing for the slight levels adjustment as the original is quite dark in the lighter areas.
This revealed a ton of hidden damage, so.... @Yann, Bammesk, Charlesjsharp, and Hamid Hassani: New version with additional restoration up. I try not to do this, but it's also true some things only show when you've stepped back a while. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 12:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Old paper often turns yellow. Yes better, so Support – Yann (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I try not to over-speculate in the absence of evidence in that line. But I do know for a fact that different copies of photos can have wildly different exposures, and often do, and that sepia images can also vary a lot in tone between copies of the same photo (both of these were very hard to precisely reproduce between copies, as they involved some very precise timing. For an example of how much things can vary, while they're not exactly the same image, compare the tones of [3] and [4], or the exposure of [5] and [6]), so I do think a little tweaking of a widely reproduced image isn't so bad. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 12:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
″Commercial promo pic.″ So what? It doesn't change the EV. Yann (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Henry Fonda pic above is also what you might call a ″Commercial promo pic″, as are many other older photos of actors and artists. I wish that more agents would release the copyright of at least one or two good hi-res photos of the people they represent, that would give us better images for many articles. Cart(talk) 13:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support either – Yann (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but the right side is too tight compared to the left (cutting the fist's glow a bit). Brandmeistertalk 17:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you prefer a more centered version, where the glow to the right is not so cropped, one is now avaliable here: File:Daft Punk in 2013 2- centered.jpg. I like that one better. Cart(talk) 00:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer ALT, centered version by Cart. Bammesk (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer ALT, I must admit the centred version is better. – Howard🌽33 13:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – On the file page, the source link: [9] is incorrect. Also I think the background color is distracting. Bammesk (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I fixed the source. – Yann (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Image is stable on the page Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though I kind of prefer something at least closer to the original crop uploaded. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 15:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bio target at 160 words is stubby and contains no info on subject's activities. Negligible EV. – Sca (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think it would be accurate to say the author of the photo is 'unknown'. If one checks the commons page, one would see that it is attributed to the uploader: مداد عمان – Howard🌽33 22:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – cart-Talk 11:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Would be better aesthetically without that empty acorn crown. – Sca (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. That way you can see the inside structure of the crown too, adds EV. --cart-Talk 14:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the empty crown interesting at all, and at full rez its detail isn't great. For this user the interest lies in the collage of nutty colors. -- Sca (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a weirdly specific criticism. – Howard🌽33 21:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – but the greens have a blue tint. Is that real ? Bammesk (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As stated on the file page, it was photographed in natural daylight. There was an overcast, so the light may have been a bit blue. Other than that, all colors are as nature made them. If desired, the color temp can be tweaked. Cart(talk) 17:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 19:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Does not add significant EV. Lost in the article. Lead image has the EV. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm a bit new on this forum so I don't know all the criteria yet. Can only lead images be FPs? Cart(talk) 22:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, certainly not. Bammesk (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first line of FP guidance states that 'Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles'. So if not in the infobox, they should add significant EV in some other way. One test surely is that if the image was removed, would we lose significant EV? So if the acorns were shown in a timeline, indicating the stages of growth and colour changes, then that would add EV. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All FPCs that get 'promoted' (approved) on this page are potentially TFPs -- if chosen as such by eds who assemble the main page. -- Sca (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that part I know. I've had several TFPs since other users have nominated my photos here. Cart(talk) 14:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Quercus robur acorns in Tuntorp 1.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 22:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a terrific image, but I agree with Brandmeister that the full-body photo of the female has more EV, and it's also a great photograph in its own right (wonderful posture!). One point in particular regarding the EV: the full-body photo of the female gives an excellent view of the feet, which are obscured in the other lead photo in the species article (the Harrison photo of the male). This matters, because the feet are what this family of birds, the Megapodiidae, are named for. That's what makes the photo of the female such a good lead image for the Megapode article, and gives it a value that the nominated detail, for all its excellence as an image, doesn't have. Charles, how would you feel about nominating that photo instead? Choliamb (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree. That photo is amazing; this one is only quite good. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 15:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:}Trying to withdraw this nomination. Can't remember how to. Full body image nominated. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2024 at 13:21:28 (UTC)
Reason
This is a historically significant image of a high technical standard, with a high resolution (2,784 × 1,713 pixels). It is already recognised as a Featured Picture on Wikicommons. It is one of the few illustrative depictions of Bresci's trial, and adds significant encyclopedic value to the respective section of Bresci's article. It is in the public domain and all the details of authorship, creation and publications are known and detailed in the file description. Minor image manipulation was carried out to cover up a page break in the middle of the image.
Support as nominator – Grnrchst (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have access to the original still, given this is a two-page spread, I'd prefer it at higher resolution and including borders and original captions. Tentative Support if not, though. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 21:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per Adam, but there is room for improvement in the restoration where the two pages meet. Bammesk (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would have to oppose unless quality improved at the join. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PawełMM has now done some extra work to improve the join. Thoughts? --Grnrchst (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks for improving it. Bammesk (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The amount of reworking that's been done to hide to join makes me uneasy. It's blurry in some places and there are others (such as the pattern on the stairs) where the current revision contradicts the original. At the same time, there's a lot of attention to detail that makes me think that truly hiding the crease isn't possible. Given the choice, I would favor a B&W version of the original, preserving the join as an innate aspect of the physical, analog source. Moonreach (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think the join is original to the image, though.It's a repair. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 13:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Very dramatic, but this user isn't usually a fan of nighttime water-reflective compositions, which don't present the subject as well as daytime photos do. – Sca (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Daytime images have more EV. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose From having visited this rather strange monument (which the official guide notes was in part constructed to discourage Germans against democracy), the photo doesn't really capture how it appears. A daytime photo would have stronger EV in regards to appearance, as well as to better capture it's rather over the top design: there's a risk that night shots glamorise it. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather simplistic. Keep in mind that allies on the anti-French side included not only Prussia, but also the UK. -- Sca (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2024 at 13:17:22 (UTC)
Reason
The image shows the appearance of the crater in the arid landscape, emphasizing both the volcanic neighbours and small volcanoes in the crater, which shows white layers of lacustrine deposits.
There isn't much detail when viewed at full size, compared to more recent satellite photos. Bammesk (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like this one? That image has a lower image quality when closed in, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the one you linked to has less pixels per mile. ESA has a version Here but that's also less pixels per mile. I was comparing it to Google Earth's top view. But that's not really a good comparison. Google uses multiple images, lots of processing, and very likely AI sharpening, so the result can be somewhat fake. The nom image has 400 pixels per mile, and per This link that is technically "high resolution". Same as This FP. It's just that the nom image looks soft at full size. Per MER-C, some (or all of it) is because of the original's small file size (449 KB), although I don't see any JPEG artifacts at full size. I sharpened it slightly. And for archiving, I uploaded the original as a separate file. Bammesk (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too highly compressed, visible JPEG artifacts. MER-C 17:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MER-C can you elaborate on the artifacts. I see softness, but otherwise nothing unusual. Bammesk (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Black ground, top right, near the boundary with the lighter ground. MER-C 19:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Now, a high quality image. --Ras67 (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – new upload by Ras67. Bammesk (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case it is necessary to say it, the new file is even better than the version I nominated, so keeping my support. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2024 at 13:21:54 (UTC)
ALT – less sky on top (CSS image crop)
Reason
Bit of a borderline case, this image illustrates the neighbourhood and appearance of the volcano Aguas Calientes rather well: Both the lake with animals (oasis in an otherwise desert landscape) and the activity of the neighbouring volcano Lascar
Support – It could be sharper, but it shows 2 volcanoes in a somewhat remote location, so good EV. I prefer ALT with slightly less sky on top. The ALT is a temporary CSS image crop, I will replaced it with an actual crop if it gets the votes. Bammesk (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC) . . . . The sharpness is fine, the foreground lake (and camera) is 10 miles from the volcanoes, and the two volcanoes are 3 miles apart. Bammesk (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would've been easier to set up with ((Easy CSS image crop)). But Support. It probably could be done better with focus stacking, but.... Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 13:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Easy CSS image crop. It makes it easy! Bammesk (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – particularly if the caption mentions the oasis in the foreground. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 02:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2024 at 13:25:15 (UTC)
Reason
This image shows both an inactive geyser cone but also a large cut of the surrounding landscape, including the gas vents that form a haze, the multicoloured and textured deposits from the geyser cone and the surrounding desertish landscape.
Oppose - I was hoping to support this, but it is too noisy to be FP. MER-C 17:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MER-C, I uploaded a new version to address your concerns. Guys, in cases like this (easy fix), just ping me and I'll improve the file right away. --Poco2 10:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have withdrawn my oppose - but I haven't quite made up my mind yet. MER-C 11:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Brilliant colors. ZombiUwU(💬~♥~📝) 11:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The blue sky looks a bit unnatural on my display, too saturated perhaps? @Poco a poco:. It's a support for me regardless. Bammesk (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bammesk: we had this discussion often on Commons. I haven't applied any additional saturation to this picture in comparison to all others. Believe me, at a height of 4,320 metres (14,170 ft) the sky looks darker than at 1000 m. --Poco2 20:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2024 at 13:28:28 (UTC)
Reason
This image illustrates both the landscape and vegetation of this semi-desert and the occurrence of the older (these cones were not active in history) and thus slightly eroded-looking cones.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2024 at 13:32:14 (UTC)
Reason
This image shows the interior of the Wau-en-Namus caldera, including the colour contrasts that this volcano is noted for between black volcanic ejecta, the grey and eroded cinder cone and the vegetation surrounding the small lakes, which are (somewhat purposefully here) not very prominent
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2024 at 13:44:04 (UTC)
Reason
This image shows the typical appearance of "Lake" Cotacotani; it is more a labyrinth of waterbodies embedded within debris from a giant volcanic landslide, thus characteristically illustrating what such a landscape looks like.
Comment There is only convention, no rule, but we wouldn't normally nominate so many together. Also, please see the detail of how others nominate according to the guidelines i.e. linking to all enwiki articles where the image is used; also choosing image shape - usually landscape. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added the link but I don't know for sure what each image shape is named. This is the last image for quite some time from my side, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Image conveys little about why the "waterbodies" may be of interest. Rather a lot of nondescript foreground. (Similar concerns about some of nominator's other posts below.) – Sca (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The sky (particularly left side) looks posterized on my display (at full size). That's strange for a 10 MB file size! Bammesk (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - yeah, that sky is posterized. MER-C 15:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Artem.G (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'd prefer actual photos. Furthermore, this is an artist's impression of an astronaut's impression, so not first-hand info. --Janke | Talk 10:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good semi-historic documentation of the event, and if we didn't have the infobox photo [10], I would have supported. But I prefer the infobox photo (which is noisy at full size, but acceptable for 1974). Bammesk (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is nice, but it doesn't show how it changed over time. Artem.G (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the nom image is a good visual documentation of what happened, and is based on first hand observations (not unusual for 1974). It has good EV. Bammesk (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per previous three posts. Visual information not readily intelligible to general readers/viewers. – Sca (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Classic photo, but dust storm images in the dust bowl article have much more EV. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It has EV, for the era, in displaying the side effects in Great bison belt#Euro-colonial effects. @Yann: there is 'retouched template' plus a 'compressed template' on the file page, so is this a contrast adjusted version of the original Here? If yes, then why the heavy adjustment? Or is this a direct scan of an old print Here? If it's a direct scan (unadjusted) of an old print or negative, then I support. Bammesk (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not made from the positive, but it seems the levels were adjusted to match it. Yann (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, I did a search and found This print, the link includes both sides. It looks like an authentic print. It matches the negative. I don't quite understand the darker version, the nom version, it looks like a night time (or evening) photo. I wonder whether the darker nom version was the dominant version published (or used) at the time. The lighter version (the negative) looks more realistic. But if the darker version was the dominant print at the time, then Ok, I would support it. Bammesk (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding this. I will restored it. Yann (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Cart(talk) 22:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite the image only being a photogravure, it's on the Library of Congress list of "Miscellaneous Items in High Demand". Luckily, a second photo from the same event is preserved as a photo print, so I could use that as reference when I restored this one. Cart(talk) 22:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why has the writing around the original been removed? Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The writing has to do with the printing company who printed the photogravure, not the photographer. As mentioned above only this photogravure has survived, not the original plate or a photo print. The photographer only made small number notes on his prints, as can be seen on the print of the other photo of the scene. Cart(talk) 14:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; so the 'original' here is the photogravure which should not be cropped. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's arguments. I usually go with "Is there a salvagable border?" Because weird grey paper (due to being a black-and-white-scan, when paper tends to have a very slight yellow tone) isn't really worth saving. I'd say Support, as long as the text cropped is in the description. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 08:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I like this a lot. It puts the 'people' in the 'place', their ancestral place. Bammesk (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC) . . . . . Support – Bammesk (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image. – Yann (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another version of the image was previously nominated on Commons FPC, but it failed since the restoration wasn't properly made. That's when my interest for these photos started. Cart(talk) 21:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Can the caption text be tightened, and also a date (even just year) be added to it? (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 02:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, "Four Hopi women on the adobe roof of Walpi Pueblo in <19xx>, looking down at the plaza where dancers are performing. The women have traditional squash blossom hairstyles, indicating they can be courted." (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 02:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, all texts can be tweaked. Now fixed. Cart(talk) 10:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: Little advice: when the Library of Congress - and only the Library of Congress - write "c1906" as a date, they mean COPYRIGHT 1906, not circa. It's one of the weird quirks of the archive. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 09:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Adam, very useful info. That explains a lot. Deciphering archive codes isn't always easy. ;-) Cart(talk) 10:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Btw Did you know that this hairstyle was the inspiration for Princess Leia's hairdo? [11] If this is featured and a TFP, might May the 4th be a good date for it? :-D (half kidding, half serious) Cart(talk) 11:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're half-joking, but I would oppose this. I'm certainly not someone who believes that cultural appropriation is inherently evil and colonialist, but I think it is important not to make the appropriative use the primary one in which a cultural tradition is understood. Particularly for something like this that is coming out of a now severely endangered indigenous culture, the original context should always be primary, the later reference secondary. Anyway, this is a great and important image--thanks for restoring it and nominating it. blameless 19:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, and I agree with your reasoning. I come from a culture where we freely float odd ideas and we like to brainstorm, to see if anything constructive can come from it. I know that is not generally embraced on wiki, hence my caveats. I was sort of going for the boost a big present-day thing could have for highlighting what you rightly call a "severely endangered indigenous culture" in some way. Cart(talk) 20:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Blameless. Bammesk (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this photo is better than the current infobox photo, I think it should be swapped. Artem.G (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, then this image can be renominated after10 days. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good composition and may be better for infobox, but at full size it's not FP quality. Maybe cell phone quality? Bammesk (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2024 at 04:41:13 (UTC)
Reason
A rather nice... I want to say four-colour lithograph - Yellow-blue-black-white, and I do mean white ink. Illustrates an opera with few other available images, the other big one being the polka by P. Bucalossi.
Promoted File:Cover to Doris Waltz by P. Bucalossi after Alfred Cellier - Art by Nicholas Hanhart.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 15:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – ZombiUwU(💬~♥~📝) 11:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Crop a bit of fuzzy BG from left? – Sca (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support We should not crop other's images without asking first. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking, with a classic crop that combines lead room with balance between the dense log and airy space up left in a very pleasant way. Cart(talk) 11:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Rule of thirds. -- Sca (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, this is not a "pure" rule of thirds. That so-called rule is just a guide for newbie photographers to keep them from placing everything in the middle. Once you are more confident and advanced in image compo (like JJ Harrison certainly is), you can finetune how you balance the photo with other parameters. Cart(talk) 19:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. Maybe we should call it the concept or guideline of thirds (which does have its uses). -- Sca (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An ok picture but doesnt screan special to me. Flat lighting --Muhammad(talk) 11:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good photo, and irreplacable given his death in 2001. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about slightly trimming the right and the top? for a more balanced image, the ALT? Pinging participants (supporters) @MER-C, Yann, Hamid Hassani, and Adam Cuerden:. Bammesk (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feels a little tight. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 23:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. Gotfryd generally relied on available light, as here, it seems. Well-composed portrait. blameless 02:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK with alt, prefer original. blameless 03:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt; slight trimming the right and the top of the picture makes it balanced and causes his face to be in the middle. Brightness is also fine, transparent. In addition, I think that the colors combination is now better. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2024 at 16:02:42 (UTC)
Reason
Aesthetically appealing (good composition and lighting) and technically informative (showcases the temple in its environment, with people for scale). There is some slight graininess in the dark areas at the highest resolution, but I believe it's subtle enough to be acceptable.
Articles in which this image appears
Garni Temple, plus equivalent pages on four other language Wikipedias
Support as nominator – Moonreach (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Nicely framed shot of a historic structure (reconstructed in the 1970s), with decent detail. Subject dates from over two millennia ago. Thorough and amply illustrated target article. Nice lighting.– Sca (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support W7070 (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I struck this vote. Editor has less than 100 edits on en-Wiki, per instructions on top of the WP:FPC page. Bammesk (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The bird is fine, but the two twigs in the background that seems to be "growing" from the bird's head are really bugging me. IMO such a blooper should not be in an FP. --Cart(talk) 13:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blooper is harsh in England. May be OK in Sweden. Please look up the meaning. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? I've only heard it in the context of "blooper reels": silly mistakes from discarded takes in films. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 00:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2024 at 11:21:27 (UTC)
Reason
One of Chaperon's most gorgeous set designs. It must have been stunning on stage. Opera is... not a particularly famous one, but it is an image from the première production.
Promoted File:Philippe Chaperon - Set design for Act V in the première of Victorin Joncières' Dimitri.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 16:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "First" images like this, are given FPs to me. Cart(talk) 11:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Agree with Carter. – Howard🌽33 18:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 17:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I fixed the source links on the image page. Yann, looking at it at full size, the "upper" right border has a dark edge (just a couple of pixels wide), it can be improved. Bammesk (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mounts are seriously the worst. Often take twice as long as the image Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 22:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:First medical X-ray by Wilhelm Röntgen of his wife Anna Bertha Ludwig's hand - 18951222.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 00:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support – Linked to fairly comprehensive 2,000-word bio target about an outsopken Vietnam-era antiwar crusader largely overlooked today. He met Ho Chi Minh in 1966. Considerable EV. Characterful face. – Sca (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I suspect you could clean up the description (it's a mess of copy-paste), but it's fine, I guess.
More importantly: Two white spots on the scarf, and two much smaller black spots on the nose. Minor black spots on the paper he's holding. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 16:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I cleaned a few more spots and scratches. Yann (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 01:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 10:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Historically influential artist. The 1869 pic. shows decent detail for the period. (Is that a newspaper he's holding?) – Sca (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. There's faint traces of text, but not enough to really tell for sure. Looks like a newspaper or journal, but there are other options Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 16:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 16:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I buy the American copyright status. It requires it to never have been published, but "published" is such a vague meaning here.... Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 11:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, reading the "ownership" section of the article, it remained with the Fabri family until 2018. I think we can assume? 2018 as its first publication date (in the U.S.). If so, and the author passing in 1941 (70 years plus), that would make it PD in the U.S. Bammesk (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we presume that the first show where it was bought from counts as publication, though.... Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 02:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Fabri, owner/custodian of the painting, worked for (wrote for [12]) Civil and Military Gazette, an India based newspaper. The painting became a national treasure and legally had to (and still does) remain in India. So the presumption that there was "no U.S. showing" is reasonable. The 2018 sale was in the digital age, so there was a worldwide showing in 2018. Bammesk (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first show was in 1937 in India, calling that a publication in India and looking at Hirtle chart again, yes, you have a valid argument. Bammesk (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the copyright's certain, don't think we can promote Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 16:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file is in the public domain in the United States because it was solely created by NASA.
Support as nominator – (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 03:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the technology of the time is inherently shown in the photo, since both the foreground and distant Earth could not be in sharp focus using cameras available in 1965. (It's a feature, not a bug.) (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 03:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - bad composition. MER-C 11:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any details on that? (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 07:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously wondering which criterion it fails to meet:
Line — the visual path that enables the eye to move within the piece
Shape — areas defined by edges within the piece, whether geometric or organic
Color — hues with their various values and intensities
Texture — surface qualities which translate into tactile illusions
Value — Shading used to emphasize form
Form — 3-D length, width, or depth
Space — the space taken up by (positive) or in between (negative) objects
Line and shape
Replies will aid understanding for future candidate proposals. Thanks! (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 00:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The blurry foreground. MER-C 18:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historical image and irreplacable. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 05:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — A 55-year-old promotional glam pic. Target bio at 155 words is a stub, with nothing about subject's notability other than her three-year marriage to Bill Russell half a century ago. (Subject now 76.) Scant visual interest. Lacks EV. – Sca (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Scant visual interest" for a model and a Miss USA. I will take that as ironic... Yann (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just another pretty fem. Not notable. -- Sca (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think she's notable? For what? -- Sca (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support Lead image of a couple articles. I might not be interested in Miss America, but it certainly passes the General Notability Guideline many times over. That said, there are a few obvious dark blotches on her face and neck that clearly aren't meant to be there, like the one on her left cheek (right as you're looking at it), and some less intrusive ones on other bits of skin. Can you do a quick secondary pass? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 01:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OOPS, how did I miss that? I think I uploaded the wrong version. Thanks for spotting that. Fixed. Yann (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also Support AltAdam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 15:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - High quality portrait and an interesting glimpse of the past. Moonreach (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose @ Yann i would be careful when editing old film pics. Anycase 2nd version made by GRuban is best here. While new edit is trying to "correct" film colors to digital, and is grevious mistake. Please make renomination in seperate and revert to 2nd option of GRuban. --Petar Milošević (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban's version obviously too dark, and 669 × 991 pixels, while my version is 3,170 × 4,768 pixels. Yann (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She is much sharper on that size in thumb on screen than your edit, I think you should make another Upload and leave original, since its better than your edit. --Petar Milošević (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's nonsense. A thumbnail is always sharper that a full size image, but you must compare what is comparable, at the same size. Yann (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdsds:, your oppose vote is missing an oppose rationale. Per instructions on top of the WP:FPC page: "Oppose, followed by your reasoning .... All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale". Bammesk (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This image does not meet criterion 3: "Is among Wikipedia's best work." It does not illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 04:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the subject's facial expression appears forced and the background buildings are distracting rather than contributing context. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 04:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appears to be on the cold hue side, as some photos of that era. Warming the colors up a bit would look more natural, I think. Brandmeistertalk 20:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Brandmeister: I already did that compared to the original TIFF. Isn't that sufficient? Yann (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a warmer version which is likely more faithful to natural vision. Brandmeistertalk 12:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Support Alt. Yann (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wikipedia should not be promoting distortions. This is cut from an iconic picture of Ford in uniform standing in front of a portrait of himself with his Oscar on the mantlepiece. It is misleading and has no place in an encyclopaedia. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, so it is. I'd support that one as a featured picture candidate. Moonreach (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Charles. And dark glasses decrease suitability. – Sca (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on that second part. You can clearly see his eyes, and in any case the glasses were part of his look. He's wearing them in the painting that's in the background of the original photo, and you can see his eyes there, too. Moonreach (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This crop is just odd: the original image is much better, and has stronger EV. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt, oppose crop, per above. Since others have commented on the uncropped version I have added it. blameless 02:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it'd need to stabilise in at least one article. That's an awfully major change to just presme will stick. It's probably not a suitable lead image, nor suitable for many other uses, so I'd like to see its new usage(s) stabilise.
Slight worries about the painting copyright, but I suspect that it's hard for an American painting to keep copyright in this era. I'd also like to see a new lead image, instead of just crop and uncrop in the same article. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 13:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be better to have a new lead image, but just for clarification, I didn't add the uncropped version to the article; it has been there since 2008. blameless 19:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Support uncropped without replacement of crop, then. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 05:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Struck vote that was cast after voting period ended. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 09:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2024 at 06:15:33 (UTC)
Reason
High resolution, good quality. Photograph of Kenvir, Kentucky, a small community in the hills of Harlan County, Kentucky. The community is a coal camp that was founded by the Black Mountain Coal Company in 1919. You can see the company houses in the background.
Support Foreground a bit blurry, but everything important is in focus. I like it a lot. Not sure why no-one else voted yet. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 00:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Nice framing. Tiny people for scale. Agree with Charles re infobox. – Sca (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! – And thank you all for your hard work and nice tone of discussion--good stuff.
Promoted File:Forte de Santo Antônio--Farol da Barra Salvador Bahia Vista Aérea 2021-0149.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 11:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2024 at 21:01:02 (UTC)
Reason
restoration of historical image, used 10 articles in Main namespace, and many more in other languages. There is an old nomination of another version. The exact date it was taken is known. I even found who is the photographer. See his story here.
George Everett Marsh Jr. (1877–1953), restored and uploaded by Yann
Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Much more EV than the previous nomination. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it's pretty good. A very nice non-colored photo; the author really pick a excellent angle to take a shot. ⚒️★MinecraftPlayer★321⚒️ Let's Chat! 04:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Small hint MinecraftPlayer321, in nominations (like this one) to promote images to to FP you should vote 'Support' or 'Oppose'. The "Keep/Delist" options are for nominations where users vote if an image should be stripped of its rank as FP. Cart(talk) 10:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Detail isn't great, but it's an image that tells the story pretty well. Good EV. – Sca (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Good quality transfer of a source image that's unfortunately slightly out of focus. I agree with Sca that's not a dealbreaker. Moonreach (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 19:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I like this image. FP criterion #5 says "It is preferable to wait a reasonable period of time (at least 7 days) after the image is added to the article before nominating it, though this may be ignored in obvious cases". I suppose this is an obvious case, though most nominators would wait. Same with your other nominations. On a sidenote, it would be nice if the article had a little more info about the current state of the town, for example population, if it's still sustained by coal mining and such. Bammesk (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – it's a good lead image in both articles listed above. Bammesk (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bammesk: For the record, adding an image where none existed is almost always a good reason to ignore the waiting rule, in my opinion. No-one's going to say no image is better than an image, unless the image is so bad and misleading that it's never pass here anyway. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 16:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is an unremarkable photo of a building, with nothing indicating that it's a company store. As such, the EV doesn't seem very strong. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a company store: The Company Commissary, known as the United Supply Company, Inc. Built 1919. But it is not a great photo. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I honestly think it's a good view into the past. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 05:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sdsds, that's better, but it's noisy when viewed at full size. Also, when used in the satellite article, it doesn't show the satellite itself, so it's EV (FP criterion #5) isn't strong. Bammesk (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 14:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support, provided that the spot on the left that is visible on the file description page is removed. MER-C 19:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MER-C: Presuming it's the one I think, it's done. You may need to clear your browser cache (Shift-Reload, usually). Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 21:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's the one. MER-C 17:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the artist's signed watercolour which was presumably used for the set design. It is not the set design. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a few that exist in multiple states, and this is part of the stage design process. The next is seperating out the backdrop from the standing pieces, etc. And, of course, it's from 1833, so well before options like photography existed to document final state. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 13:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2024 at 09:49:04 (UTC)
Reason
Infobox image in main article, excellent photo of iconic view for any Swede. To non-Swedes mostly know as the venue of the Nobel Banquet. Blue hour winter photo that eliminates all the tourists, foliage, boats and commercial stuff that usually clutter this area. Bonus points for including the noted Västerbron bridge, which also gives depth to image.
Support as nominator – Cart(talk) 09:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Nifty nighttime tableau, but daytime pix illustrate such subjects better. – Sca (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree. Should not have put in infobox. The daytime image it replaced has far more EV than this. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't this image be cropped? It has far too much of an empty margin imo. – Howard🌽33 00:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you crop it, you lose text and also make the multi-layered coloured more confusin to interpret. It's CSS cropped in the article, which is less destructive. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 00:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh ok then. – Howard🌽33 13:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 19:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Sanpshot-quality image with poor detail. Dark. – Sca (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The background is dark, not the person. And it is a feature, not a bug. It helps separate her from the background. Yann (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but fails Criterion No. 3, IMO. -- Sca (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with Sca, harsh flash lighting. MER-C 11:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, artistic styles have moved on a lot, but I don't think this is bad for its time, it's just a discredited effect after it turned from "look at the neat effect these cameras can do with a flash" to "...everyone's camera can make a photo like this easily" Weak supportAdam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 08:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Fine for target article, but questionable EV by main page standards. (All FPCs approved here are perforce potential candidates for TFPs.) – Sca (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could always label the fire on the map if it would help -- GuerilleroParlez Moi 15:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to accept a lot more in a photo of a one-off event taken at night, but a little filtering might improve this a lot Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I took a similar photo of bushfires near Canberra at night in the 2020 bushfires, and agree that the technical difficulties are quite significant here. This photo is dramatic and useful, but isn't of FP standard technically. Nick-D (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Visible artifacts, somewhat hazy (like it's a photo of a wildfire or something...) some bright spots. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ plz edit my user pg! Talk 03:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:010e Wild Bearded Vulture in flight at Pfyn-Finges (Switzerland) Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 20:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – MER-C 12:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Diliff's usual careful framing and resplendent detail. The lavishly illustrated article contains three other photos of his his. – Sca (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. @WeatherWriter:, this image can be a FP if it is added to an article where it would serve as a depiction that supports the text (meaning, the concept), such as in an appropriate section in the Weather radar or NEXRAD article. Bammesk (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]