Decent quality. A similar photo won 1963 World Press Photo of the year. Malcolm Browne went on to win the Pulitzer Prize the next year. Provides significant encylopedic value by illustrating Thích Quảng Đức's protest that resulted in his death, and compels the reader to learn more.
Support Reminds me on a Napalm girl from Vietnam. But this one is free now. Other Pulitzers will have to wait. --PetarM (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course. And kudos for noticing the copyright nonrenewal :) — Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One of the best nominees this year. Extremely high EV, extremely shocking -- but important -- subject matter. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and it looks like this will be the first image promoted next year. Worth trying to get in the Signpost, maybe. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- as others. Yann (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good catch on that copyright, this is one of those photos that appears in the history books, so I'm pleased to see its on the verge of obtaining an FP Star. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Thích Quảng Đức self-immolation.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 00:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – PetarM (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – He was emperor of the decrepit HRE for eight years, abdicating after losing to Napoleon at Austerlitz. – Sca (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I don't see EV in the nominated category, the article doesn't mention the sculpture. Bammesk (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bammesk i try to get what are you asking for ? Which article should mention the sculpture ? --PetarM (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PetarM: The article you listed above. Nom's reason is: "illustrative and good quality", category is: "Artwork/Sculpture", so I look for content on the sculpture. If the nomination reason was: "Depiction of emperor in an article about the emperor", then the reason section should say so, and in that case I think there are better depictions in the article which show the emperor in full and in color. It is a good photo, but I don't see EV for FP. Bammesk (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bammesk this is more question for forensics. But when i pass all those photos, i could not get his face more clearly than on this sculpture. Not just front but side too. Artist may tell you why sculpture/bust than painting. If you dont see reason, vote no. --PetarM (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – weak EV, good photo but there are better depictions of him [1], [2], [3], [4]. Bammesk (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose due to the EV issue. It is, however, an incredibly compelling photograph of an eye-catching sculpture. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2017 at 15:02:09 (UTC)
Original – The large arch by the entrance of Rocky Point State Park is one of the few structures remaining from the amusement park.
Reason
Rocky Point State Park in Rhode Island was built on the site of an abandoned historic amusement park. Only a couple artifacts from the latter. The most obvious/largest/best known is this giant arch, originally from the 1964 World's Fair in NY. It's a passive use park, largely open space and paths, so this does, in my opinion, depict the park pretty well. It's the VI for the park and a QI on Commons.
Comment – EV? Sca (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: I don't know what to do with this comment. Are you asking what the encyclopedic value is? If so, it's built into the reason description and I don't know what else to say. It's a depiction of a notable park including a [locally, anyway] iconic artifact from a [not just locally] historic amusement park (and the World's Fair)... — Rhododendritestalk \\ 01:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I kind of agree with Sca. This is a good depiction of the arch, but the arch is not that significant or notable. Is this a good depiction of the park? It shows an asphalt path and a shallow hill, it doesn't show very much, other than the arch. Bammesk (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but as I said in the reason, it's a small, newly opened passive use park that's basically open space, a couple paths, and a few remnants of the old amusement park (of which this is the most prominent). There's history, and it's good the land was preserved for public use, but the place is, at this point, fairly unimpressive. I nominated it because I do think it's a pretty good representation of the park. I mean, as with just about any subject I can imagine something better (e.g. if I had access to a drone to take an aerial shot), so I guess I just don't know what's expected... :/ — Rhododendritestalk \\ 03:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a good photo, but when it comes to EV opinions differ. Here is how I think of the EV in general terms: when I see a photo and it is interesting enough that I want to know more, then is there content on the English Wikipedia to satisfy my curiosity. In this particular case, I see the photo as a depiction of the arch, rather than the park, and the arch is not that notable, and in my opinion not that interesting (based on our content) to have a FP of its own. (but sometime, some photos, make all this logic go out the window!!) Bammesk (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. Happy for this to be a learning experience if I'm off target. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 04:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This pic don't identify the subject properly. As per WP:FP? Is among Wikipedia's best work. It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer. It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. A photograph has appropriate lighting to maximize visible detail; diagrams and other illustrations are clear and informative. --MarvellousSpider-Man 06:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Photo shows an empty place, the character of which is not readily discernible. This photo, also in article, contains more visual info and is more accessible to the viewer. The nominated photo, IMO, fails criteria 3 and 5. Sca (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – weak EV, the arch dominates the image and it isn't notable. Bammesk (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – It seems a good illustration for the place. Yann (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a nice photo, but its EV is limited as it's not clear what the photo depicts. The photo of the "Remains of the Skyliner ride's upper turnaround" in the Rocky Point State Park has much stronger EV as it depicts what's clearly abandoned entertainment infrastructure, though the present image isn't quite as good technically. Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2017 at 11:56:38 (UTC)
Original – Elizabeth L. Remba Gardner of Rockford, Illinois, takes a look around before sending her plane streaking down the runway at the Harlingen Army Airfield, Texas. Gardner served with the Women Airforce Service Pilots, or WASPs, during World War II.
Reason
Great illustration of a WWII WASP pilot in action.
Comment - Great image with EV, but it could use some restoration...--Godot13 (talk) 09:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Godot - the image is clearly has FP potential (and covers an under-photographed subject), but it needs bit of a clean up. The serial number should be removed for starters. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will clean it up (working on it).Bammesk (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2017 at 01:30:42 (UTC)
Original – Two blue wildebeest males fighting for dominance in Etosha National Park. When they clash, they face up to each other with bent knees and exchange horn thrusts. Elaborate individual displays are made during their rivalry and they may bellow, snort and dig their horns into the ground.
Reason
Excellent quality and engaging depiction of blue wildbeest behaviour in nature - we have relatively few FPs of animals in action (feeding, fighting, etc)
Support as nominator – ELEKHHT 01:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jobas (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose busy foreground - should be croped. --PetarM (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice EV and great shot. You could crop some of the foreground scrub out but I would support as is also. |→ Spaullyτ 11:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately the foreground spoils this shot. An unobstructed view would be much superior. Nick-D (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to awkward framing with the obstructed foreground, as well as the slight motion blur - not enough to convey a sense of intensity, but just enough to be annoying. With the camera used, it would have been trivial to bump the ISO up one or two stops to completely freeze the action. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for technical reasons: strange posterization artifacts in sky above roof garden. Would support otherwise - stunning architecture! Ought to be in Marina Bay Sands for maximum EV. --Janke | Talk 10:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - I'm usually not picky when it comes to weather, but the clouds really don't bring out the building well. Same color, dark, and etc. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Janke. This is a nice photo, but not of FP technical standards - especially as it can be easily reproduced (and is a rather iconic image of modern Singapore). Nick-D (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Janke – Jobas (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very noticeable in full size. Looks like a botched stitching job or an attempt to remove some foreground objects - you can see the seams, on both the soft areas, left & right... Oppose at least until fixed, if that is possible. Otherwise a stunning view. --Janke | Talk 09:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The border of the blurry zone is very noticeable - it looks like part of a lower resolution copy has been used to cover over something. But it should be fixable, if there is access to the high-res unedited original. It is a very nice view of the mountain: probably millions of similar images exist of it taken from the same viewing point but it would be hard to find one this sharp and free of haze or cloud cover. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Two weird large blurry spots on the bottom left and bottom right. Mattximus (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per other – Jobas (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could it be because it was a panorama shot? The description of the original photo has a Note about the quality of the photograph that I should have looked at. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not crop off the bottom edge of the image, most of the part with the ploughed field - it is not necessary for the image of the mountain. Any small remaining part of the top of the blurry low-res zone could be covered by cloning adjoining high-res parts of the field? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tiptoethrutheminefield: That's a possibility. But cropping such a beautiful field like that is painful. Plus, making a panorama strictly a mountain isn't so appealing either. The scenery is what makes it special. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, I advice against cropping it since there is an easy fix which involves free hand manipulation of a symmetric (mirror) copy of a section from the left side (of the vertical line) to cover the right side. Vegetations are mostly texturing which changes each season, so such a modification won't affect the integrity of the image, like it would have been the case if we had touched the mountain itself. I can volunteer if no one does.
I would change my vote if the giant blurry parts are fixed. Mattximus (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tested the easy fix but didn't like it. There is another fix which involves more work. I have time this Saturday but since the vote ends Jan 11, it might be too late. If no one finds an easy fix which keeps the field by that time, I will have it ready by the end of this week and the nominator can nominate it again. Yaḥyā (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The mountain part is good. The blur is on the grass at bottom left. MarvellousSpider-Man 16:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear Friends, I am the author of this photo. The reason for the blurriness is strictly a result of Adobe Lightroom 6's panorama feature, after stitching the 4 original RAW images. I noticed it only later. I will try to do another stitch (perhaps not removing lens distortions first) and see what results we get. If this doesn't work, I can offer the original RAW photos to anyone who would like to give it a try themselves. Thank you. P.S. the original (uncropped) version of the file is here. Սէրուժ (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I succeeded in reproducing this cropped version of the original panorama without any blurs. I am uploading two versions: the first with minimal crop, and the second with a crop corresponding to the above image you voted on. Here is the first version: minimal crop with no blur. Սէրուժ (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And here is the cropped version to match above: Cropped version with no blur. Սէրուժ (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, there is also a single-frame image from before (taken with 28mm on 1.6x crop sensor) here: Single frame @ 28mm. Սէրուժ (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also uploaded the version of this image without blur to the file location that was being voted upon on this page.Սէրուժ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-nominate the newly stitched (cropped) image, I would be happy to support it. --Janke | Talk 14:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The police raid of the Stonewall Inn started the Stonewall riots, a major event in the gay liberation movement in the United States. This sign from that night is now framed at the Inn. Because of the wall it's on, in a tiny entryway, glare from the red light was, for me anyway, unavoidable without taking the picture from a harsh angle. IMO the technical quality is acceptable, but the encyclopedic value is high. On Commons, it is a QI and VI.
Oppose It's not really clear that this sign itself has any encyclopedic value. It's the raid that was important, not the sign telling us there was a raid. In fact, this sign isn't mentioned in any article. Mattximus (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me the reflection of the red glare and street light is too distracting and is something that could be overcome so I oppose on technical grounds. |→ Spaullyτ 11:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per other – Jobas (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - Ok let's go ahead and withdraw this. I wasn't sure about it to begin with. Good learning experience, but no need to draw it out. :) Not sure if withdrawing is something I do or a third party does, so I'll just leave this here. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 01:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – PetarM (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't see the EV in damask, the article says damask is figured - this is plain, could be any cloth. OK example of surface tension, but because of shallow DOF, it doesn't fulfill FP criterion #3, IMO. --Janke | Talk 12:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 03:51:05 (UTC)
Original – A painting of an officer of the Imperial Horse Guards charging into the Battle of Benavente.
Reason
It is a high quality painting of the officer's charge (even at its original pixelage of 4,489 × 5,853), that comes from the Battle of Benavente, an important part of the Peninsular War.
Oppose. - There is presently no EV for this painting. It is not of any specific person, the painting itself does not have a page, and the painting is not mentioned in any page at all. Mattximus (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, I missed it because it was not linked, cancelled my oppose.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattximus (talk • contribs)
Support – Jobas (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – excessive manipulation, criteria 8. The blue hue on the horse's face and rear is odd. The sources show grey [5][6]. I wouldn't oppose if a reliable source showed blue. Bammesk (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately the 'e' of the painters name has been cropped from the image, this version [7] shows not by much but it would seem unfair to promote an image without adequate recognition of the original artist. If rectified I would switch to support. |→ Spaullyτ 16:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Spaully: The original source, which is a much higher quality image, doesn't have it. See here. While I understand that there should be recognition, it would be hard to patch in the signature without noticeably lowering the quality of the image. Plenty of the featured paintings on Wikipedia have no signature in them, as seen here. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 21:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
oppose I'm not sure I see the EV for this painting. It is in de Nansouty's page, but it is not of him. There is no mention of this painting in any of the pages, and the painting itself does not have a page. Also, does the original also cut off the end of the author's signature? It's possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattximus (talk • contribs) 02:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattximus: Just because their is no article of it doesn't mean one can't be created. I am currently working on making a page for it. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 06:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2017 at 14:02:55 (UTC)
Original – A image of the cliffs of South Australia meeting the sea in the Great Australian Bight Commonwealth Marine Reserve. Taken in 2010 when it was known as the Great Australian Bight Marine Park.
Reason
High quality image taken of the cliffs of the Great Australian Bight showing both the landscape and the sea and its movements against the cliffs.
Support as nominator – King of♥♦♣ ♠ 07:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me, or does this look a bit tilted? --Janke | Talk 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The horizon at the left is naturally higher than the right. Any parts that are supposed to be straight are straight. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 19:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a horizon tilt, but the nearside perspective (say of the turbulent water) seems a bit tilted in comparison with the far-side perspective. Perhaps the side effect of stitching images of a deep expansive scenery. Bammesk (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oppose – Very nice comp, but bothered by haze, glare and/or lack of focus at upper left. (Maybe a different time of day would work better?) Sca (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the glare at top left, and I think the body of water at right looks like a frozen glacier. The balance of light just isn't there. lNeverCry 23:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think the light is really nice. Not every FP has to be taken at high noon. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice, as if there were a natural swimming pool on the top. Brandmeistertalk 15:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Foreground is very nicely lit. The beach retains a lot of details. My issue with the snap is the glare on the top left & that the structures in the top middle are out of focus, suffer haze. Not sure of what to make of the lake (?) behind the hills. The details are captured well but i think it is distracting / not adding value to the picture. Revisiting the site & tighter crop will be a great addition Kalyan (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's neither "a pool on the top" or even a lake, it is the same sea level, just divided by a peninsula... Oppose, looks unnatural. --Janke | Talk 21:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Janke: If you try searching "Point Reyes" on Google Images, you see many versions of this scene, all of which have the horizon higher at the left than at the right, e.g. [8][9]. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Janke: Actually, I know why it looks different: You are standing on a hill which is above sea level. On the right you are looking at the sea level 1 km from you. On the left you are looking at the sea level at the earth's curvature, which is much more than 1 km. Since the vertical distance from your elevation to sea level is the same, the arctangent is larger when the horizontal distance is smaller, so the sea level will appear lower on the right. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 06:21:11 (UTC)
Original – How the antenna works. The radio waves from each element are emitted with a phase delay, so that the individual waves emitted in the forward direction (up) are in phase, while the waves in the reverse direction are out of phase. Therefore the forward waves add together, (constructive interference) enhancing the power in that direction, while the backward waves partially cancel each other (destructive interference) reducing the power emitted in that direction. At other angles the power emitted is intermediate between the two extremes.
Reason
Effectively illustrates a complex apparatus and makes it intuitively understandable.
Support as nominator – Foobaz·o< 06:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it moves slightly too fast. It's not really clear that the green line is the only driven element - it just looks like all of them pulse. A slightly slower animation focused on the Yagi a bit more would be good. Perhaps for clarity, the elements should flash or otherwise change when they absorb/re-raditiate power. If I didn't already know how this antenna worked, I don't think this diagram would help much. Smurrayinchester 16:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with above comment. Bammesk (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it moves too quickly to really understand how this works. Also, I remain confused as to what it's showing, so I don't think it serves it's encyclopedic purpose. Mattximus (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 15:57:15 (UTC)
Original – Front and back view of a Fairphone 2 with a transparent case. The phone is modular, allowing individual components to be repaired or upgraded without having to replace the entire phone. Visible replaceable components include the screen, cameras, loudspeaker and battery.
Comment – this is a marketing photo of a recent product (early 2016). If it becomes FP, it can then be POTD on the main page. Is that Ok? Bammesk (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the current POTD backlog, this would probably end up appearing some time mid-2019... (More seriously, we do already have at least one featured picture of a current electronic product.) Smurrayinchester 08:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Uninteresting marketing photo. To be fair, can you really say that this is of "the best Wikipedia has to offer"? --Janke | Talk 09:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly, we don't currently have any featured pictures of phones - this seems like a definite lacuna, given how ubiquitous they are. Are there any superior images of smartphones you can recommend (particularly ones that show internal components)? Smurrayinchester 13:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 16:35:06 (UTC)
Original – Alabaster vase of pharaoh Semerkhet, c. 2920 BCE.Alt – enhanced version: focused/sharper artwork lines on vase (but no sharpening on the vase surface itself), removed background/bokeh noise, slightly warmer white-balance, slight increase in overall contrast (performed in that order).
Reason
Encyclopedic Value:
In pristine condition, this unique alabaster vase arching back to the First Dynasty of Egypt recalls the visit of a poorly known pharaoh named Semerkhet to the Palace of the pleased king.
The standing man hieroglyph used as part of the king's name is particularly rare
The left sign in the rectangle is important to understand the evolution of hieroglyphic writing, being an early form of the hotep sign (see the course on the matter on wikiversity).
The vase shows the earliest known exemple of the Two Ladies name (vulture and cobra), used by virtually all subsequent pharaohs until Roman times.
Difficulties: picture has high resolution and comes from a small badly-lit corner of a room in a museum which has otherwise very few Egyptian antiquities and is rarely visited for them. I did my best to capture the hieroglyphs with the terrible surrounding light and distance of over 1m from the object, which was located behind a thick glass.
Support as nominator – Iry-Hor (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose original – excellent EV, but not a high quality photo, sorry. The poor lighting (as stated by nominator) is affecting DOF and noise. Bammesk (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bammesk Do you think the image could be enhanced digitally now? I would really like to see this image become as good as possible. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it can be improved to the point of passing FP criteria. Vase area need sharpening (DOF) and the shadows need blurring (noise). Perhaps others with more experience can do more for the image than I can. If the museum is accessible to you, it is best to shoot it again with a tripod (if allowed), or with a much better camera. Those are really the best ways. Bammesk (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Sidenote: if you shoot it again for the purpose of passing FP criteria, please note that some reviewers may find the crop too tight and the background too busy/distracting. I am Ok with both though, given the EV.[reply]
Bammesk Unfortunately the museum is not accessible to me anymore. I posted the picture because I interpreted the following point in the FP criteria "A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value" as meaning that for a high enough EV, the photo can be of passable quality. Iry-Hor (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria is specific in some ways but it is also open to interpretation by individuals. My vote is just one vote and not a final word (nor is my opinion). Here is my opinion: in this case the subject is a museum piece, therefore there is opportunity to create a better image. For historic, rare or onetime events, or given a specific reason on a case by case basis, then bypassing the quality standards of the criteria is Ok. But excellent EV on its own is not sufficient, in my opinion. Bammesk (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Bammesk. lNeverCry 00:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I uploaded an enhanced alternate. Modifications are listed in the Alt image caption. I think the Alternate might meets the FP standards, the votes will show whether it does or not. As a minimum we have a better image. Pinging those who commented @INeverCry and Iry-Hor:. Bammesk (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Bammesk – Jobas (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt – Excellent EV, technically acceptable, and the EV justifies the tight crop and somewhat busy background. Bammesk (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Alt image is much better indeed! Iry-Hor (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So with two Support and two Oppose how do we decide? Iry-Hor (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Instructions on top of this page say 5 support votes minimum and two-third majority, 2 votes is not enough. Bammesk (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 11:41:26 (UTC)
Original – The cave of Salão da Floresta Branca, in Terra Ronca State Park, a state park in the municipality of São Domingos, Brazil. The natural complex of the region is composed of numerous caves with a rich system of speleothems, springs and rivers, along with diverse flora and fauna.
Reason
Good detail, high quality, impressive composition, high EV
Support as nominator – Tomer T (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – good photo of the cave, but her pose and backlighting makes it look like a park-advertisement photo. Bammesk (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Bammesk. Its strange, when pure nature becomes studio. Up to see other comments... --Mile (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stiff pose and strange lighting. lNeverCry 00:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
יוסי צבקר (translated: Yossi Zavker; contributed with OTRS)
Support as nominator – Tomer T (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, 83 pixels short of the required minimum but very nice. Brandmeistertalk 13:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing is actually so special here, from size one. But FP is in lack of "human beeings", at least is simpatical. --Mile (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it's quite a good picture, but the resolution is a bit too small to be considered a featured picture. Also the article is an unsourced stub. Mattximus (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I like it a lot, but I'd ideally like to see the article improved a little; it's completely unsourced, and doesn't mention anything about the group since 1981. Are these the same members? Until when was the band active? Josh Milburn (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've left some comments at related WikiProjects. Hopefully someone will be able to help! Josh Milburn (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Looks like your basic publicity shot. Sca (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think a lack of people FPs is a good reason to promote mediocre images. As mentioned above, it's really nothing special. The tones are too warm (almost on a sepia level), there's a stray+blurry hand protruding from the edge of the frame, and the file size is quite small... although I guess it's adequate for the subject matter. EV sort of weak given how short and unsourced the article is. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its more carving than true sculpture, despite 3D. Otherwise isnt so interesting; colors, crop could be done too. --Mile (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The composition doesn't blow my mind, but the sharpness and the fact she's on the podium easily trump that. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Josh, were going to have to find a substitute for that verb. Override, outweigh, offset, cancel out? Sca (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A substitute? You mean, alternative verbs? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
[reply]
Exactly. Under the circumstances, perhaps we should devise one of our own. How about outtrump? Sca (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Simone Biles at the 2016 Olympics all-around gold medal podium (28262782114).jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 13:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
Sca (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)