Support. I'm surprised Commons FPC didn't flag the noise but the composition justifies ISO 800. MER-C 10:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Sca EN.Wiki should get rid of center-center crop. Photo is about good crop and not showing technical image like engineer. @MER-C i think noise is still on normal. And Merry Christmas. --Petar Milošević (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This user is not an unvarying proponent of the center-center crop. Remember the rule of thirds? My comment concerned mainly the out-of-focus BG at right. -- Sca (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Gibson's Albatross 0A2A8124.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 10:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artem.G: Some minor changes made, mainly a slight contrast up, and a bit more removal of dust spots. Should've waited to come back from breakfast before nominating. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 18:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The uncropped version is a better photograph. I am wondering about the blown highlights--probably a tricky scan given the strong light and shadows, but I doubt it's that bad in the original, based on this photo taken on the same occasion and including the same glass roof. blameless 01:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Man (now deceased) in suit and tie whose supposed notoriety stems from his politician son. – Sca (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why do Slavic revolutionaries have such odd haircuts? – Howard🌽33 15:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Historical hair often is explained in part by fundamentally different historical haircare. Moustache wax, rarer washing schedules and generally different products and habits all combine. Think it was also kind of a fashion in that group. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 22:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or is it because they're tearing their hair out in revolutionary rage? -- Sca (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – At lower-res settings, there appears to be a thin white line beneath its dorsal ventral region. – Sca (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support If you mean the underside of the fish (not dorsal) I see no problem. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot to like about this photo regarding the naturalness of pose and expression, and being very good for this time period (the 1910s were a transitional period away from the excessively long photographic takes of the Victorian period, but that had some compromises that would take a while to get past; I'd say this photo is actually exceptional for the era)
Support either as nominator – Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 02:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a great composition. More of a snapshot. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible a crop was intended, but I do like details, like the Western Union Telegraph form on the left. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 23:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Cluttery comp. Bio article thin at 140 words. Subject's foray into politics was brief and unsuccessful. Negligible EV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sca (talk • contribs)
Support Alt 1 – The crop is much better. Her face is out of focus, but at 50% magnification it passes for a historic photo IMO. Bammesk (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, you forgot to give a reason above. Bammesk (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – MER-C 10:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - There is just one question: is this an absolute original, without any later restoration or modification that might still be under copyright? The video size is 1,296×1,080 pixels, almost totally scratch free, which clearly indicates a hi-res transfer done by Disney. Interestingly, here in Finland, the source link on the file info page "https://video.disney.com/watch/steamboat-willie-4ea9de5180b375f7476ada2c" does not display the movie, but automatically changes to https://www.disney.fi/ - I assume this is done by Disney's server? --Janke | Talk 14:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For anyone interested, just a few days ago, Disney uploaded their "Once upon a Studio" short on their YouTube channel. It's a wonderful trip to 100 years of nostalgia: "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gB90me0aqSY" ... --Janke | Talk 14:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Janke: the link works correctly for me (in the US). The current revision of the file is the same as the source, but with the black bars on the side cropped out, hence 1296 instead of 1920 (I used HandBrake for it). The first revision of the file is identical to what is available from the Disney website (no cropping). There's some more details in this Commons discussion. Legoktm (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – It premiered in November 1928. I don't think the concerns expressed above are sufficient to merit a separate copyright for the nominated animation. Bammesk (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support We usually wait for a week after the file is uploaded and/or added to articles, isn't? But well... – Yann (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but not "in obvious cases" per FP criterion #5. Bammesk (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not typical to run the POTD for the item a day before the corresponding FPC 😊 — Amakuru (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
High quality photo of an original manuscript. The 200th anniversary of this song's first performance is also coming up in May 7 (song was first performed in 7 May 1824), perhaps it can be POTD?
Comment Why Page 12? I'm certainly for promoting Beethoven's 9th Syphony , but it feels a very arbitrary choice of page. Why not, say, the opening. or the start of the Ode to Joy? I'd support this as part of a complete set, but, on its own.... Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 12:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was just the most widely used one, it appears in multiple articles and was the only page uploaded to commons. I am actually more willing to support a complete set if I knew how to download the high quality scans of the pages and then upload them to commons. – Howard🌽33 14:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, the page you suggested: [1] is bland, it has very little musical notation on it. At small thumbnail sizes (say at 400px), the nom image looks more like sheet music. Bammesk (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Random choice. Not a well-known extract. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2024 at 00:00:00 (UTC)
Original – the Rock Springs massacre, in which white miners in Wyoming massacred Chinese miners, who they thought were taking their jobs.
Reason
It's a contemporary illustration of a tragedy, and covers a very poorly-discussed part of United States history. Strong documentary value. The description mentions photos, but there's no evidence they still exist (and likely would have been of the aftermath, not the event itself) and this is long-standing as the lead of the article.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2024 at 00:00:00 (UTC)
Original – The Lost World (1925), an American silent fantasy giant monster adventure film directed by Harry O. Hoyt and written by Marion Fairfax, adapted from Arthur Conan Doyle's 1912 novel of the same name.
Reason
famous picture, HR copy, deemed "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant" by the Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry
Oppose – Target article is a 45-word fragment of a stub, consisting mainly of a list of countries in which the species is found. Not enough with which to construct a reasonably informative copy block. – Sca (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As above, are you re-writing the FP rules Sca? Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has changed. All FPCs promoted here are potentially TFPs, requiring a modicum of textural info for Main Page use. This is a recording. -- Sca (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Today's main page TFP of the butterfly Danaus chrysippus, taken by you, is supported by a 187-word copy block based on a comprehensive 2,500-word article. Encyclopedias are all about information. -- Sca (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that this is a fairly obscure butterfly, at least in English and on the web. I can't find very much on it. This might be a little bit of a problem as regards the risk of the article being upmerged to the genus, but I suspect it's just a situation that would need specialised books or databases. African content is much more poorly referenced on the web, and we know that - at the very least - there's going to be the initial report by Fabricius on the species. 1787 would put it in his Mantissa insectorum. So Latin sources. Fun. The genus name has changed (which is common), but I'm pretty sure it's this page https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/82321#page/94/mode/1up and that would provide enough to expand the article enough to squeak by POTD. Hence, SupportAdam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 22:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Target article is a 35-word fragment of a stub: Not enough with which to construct a reasonably informative copy block. – Sca (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of an encyclopaedia is that people can find hard-to-find information, in this case an image. The rarer the subject, the more important it is to have an image. With rare animals, so little is known about them that many articles are stubs. I don't see the relevance of being able to construct a copy block. Is that a new FP criteria? Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To @Sca 's point this bird doesn't appear to be very rare a quick google search yielded me hundreds of similar images and a depth of information. Personally I think this images artistic value is being given priority over its EV but I could be mistaken. similar imagesZombiUwU(💬~♥~📝) 20:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about his, but I'd guess the main-pagers would be unlikely to to go to a non-Wiki source for info. But if our article were expanded, that would be a different story. -- Sca (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support A picture is worth a 1000 words --Muhammad(talk) 08:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I added a bit to the article; there is information out there, though often in antpitta surveys such as the two articles I cited. "Slate-crowned" appears to be the more common name. blameless 18:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - After further consideration, I decided to support this as it is of high quality and it is one of the better images of this bird. This image is only present on one stub class article with low priority. It's a very good-looking image but not a particularly technically challenging image and has hundreds of similar examples. --ZombiUwU(💬~♥~📝) 20:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, reading up more, a lot of the blurring was apparently added intentionally in post-processing. It's meant to give it the impression of a painting, and, honestly, it does kind of fit in with the way paintings were composed in that period. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 13:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd love to know why this was considered as an example framing etc. It has no artistic merit as a composition to my eyes. So much wrong with it. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what I mean when I say that the first people to do things can sometimes do them a lot less well than they'd be done later? This is photography composition before the refinement, kind of major because it attempted to get multiple levels and has prominent people in a landscape shot. It's bold in that it daringly broke the rules. Other people would later break the rules a lot better. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 22:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it does seem rather blah. -- Sca (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this really got people to do things differently, then OK; but not if it was a poorly-executed attempt. We need THE image that broke the mould... Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a good agreement might be: if I withdraw this, and if I can get an article on the image itself (as opposed to just in Annan's article), or an article on the house itself, we relook at it? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 13:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Even though I would like to support a photo of a fellow countrywoman, I think it needs restoration: there are lots of dust spots. It also looks up-sampled, even the smallest dust spots are 2x2 pixels... --Janke | Talk 12:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the two other show her younger, and lack the eerie look we've become used to in her self-portraits... --Janke | Talk 19:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were lots of shipwrecks in Point Lonsdale in this period. This is both a good representation of a semi-common event in Point Lonsdale, a nice historic view of Point Lonsdale, and a great example of the photographer's work. I think that's enough.Also there's an article on the ship now, so...
Comment Not sure it adds huge EV to either article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, but I think it adds some EV as a good example of the photographer's work, and a good example of the shipwrecks and landscape of the Victorian Point Lonsdale. I'd say this is a strong secondary image, which I'd say is enough, but, y'know, it's a judgement call. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 19:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:024 Red-chested cuckoo at Kibale forest National Park Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 16:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Snapshot quality fails Criterion 3. Not used outside Fred M. Vinson. EV lacking. – Sca (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca Firstly, please explain to me how it fails criterion 3, I think it's pretty good quality. I personally believe that this photo is very encyclopedic. I want you to tell me how it isn't encyclopedic. Sincerely 🌹FatCat96🌹Chat with Cat 03:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn - I've decided to go with a different image. 🌹FatCat96🌹Chat with Cat 06:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Pic by itself doesn't illustrate the broad topic of Transportation in Appalachia. Nothing in the image portrays Appalachia per se – not even the KY plate, which is fuzzy at full rez anyway. – Sca (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it's a lovely photo, at least. But why is it next to text describing the Pennsylvania Turnpike when it's in Kentucky? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 07:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Xcllnt example of big lapels matched with small bowtie. Otherwise rather obscure subject, except perhaps in KY. Doubtful EV. – Sca (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Couple specks on the lapels, otherwise, quite pristine. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 01:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:John D. White - Brady Handy cropped.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 09:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Indistinct visual information not readily intelligible to readers/viewers. First target article, Everglades, doesn't comment on image. – Sca (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does it show all of the Everglades? Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. -- Sca (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Visual information not readily intelligible to readers/viewers. Subject lacks its own article, and first target article, History of Houston, doesn't comment on it. – Sca (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've featured historic maps of towns before. Honestly, my only issue is the reproduction: It's a little blurred, and very damaged at the bottom. It's a bit later, but [3] might be a stronger contender. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 20:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Isn't it upside down, with South at the top? Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be shown from a natural rise, given this predates drones (although not balloons, but even then, you wanted an area to launch your balloon from). The point was to show the relations, cardinal directions were less kmportant Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 23:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2024 at 11:54:41 (UTC)
Original – The Bhimbetka rock shelters are an archaeological site in central India that spans the Paleolithic and Mesolithic periods, as well as the historic period.
Question These are new to me and amazing. But what is the brown 'frame' that runs around the art? This doesn't appear other images on Google. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's because I have taken the picture with the flash. On the pictures I have not used the flash, the line doesn't appear but the pictures are not sharp.--Bgag (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is related to the use of flash, but it looks very strange close up. I suspect the camera moved and the flash fired twice. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Awkwardly cut off at right, gives the impression of a cave, which it is not. --Janke | Talk 15:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The shadow is from a typical on-camera flash, nothing unusual about it. It's a nice and valuable photo and it enhances the articles, but the right quarter of the photo isn't sharp (viewed at full size). A higher F-number or a sharper lens could've improved the sharpness. Bammesk (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. It is not typical. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the geometry, with an overhanging ceiling and the distances involved, I agree with Bammesk's conclusion. Oppose because a better photo can certainly be shot. --Janke | Talk 16:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The photo has some non-visible white spots and a few scratches that can only be seen when zoomed in. I am confident that if those are removed then it would be a good image. Thanks for the new photos, i'll probably do something with those. I like the second image because I believe it represents him well. I think that when people think of Adlai E. Stevenson I, they picture a bald old man with a thick mustache, which the second image shows well. Thanks and have a good day. 🌹FatCat96🌹Chat with Cat 04:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FatCat96: Note I didn't check every image of him on the LoC; there may be even better if you look. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 08:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed some scratches and specks on the original image. If there is anything else that concerns you please tell me. 🌹FatCat96🌹Chat with Cat 05:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. I think the restoration's fine, just the original photo is kind of weak... Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 19:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Man squinting with hands in foreground. We've seen this one before. – Sca (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough EV and a poor composition Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the restoration, but there's two issues, in my opinion: First of all, it's used very late in the article, without really a ton of emphasis. Secondly, and Charles won't like this suggestion, but that black space on the left needs at least mostly cropped out, with corresponding crops to balance. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 20:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Little unbalanced; probably need more on the left, less on the right? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 19:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox image is a FP, it was recently nominated. I don't see much value (EV) in this photo. Yes he is smiling and his nickname was "Happy", but that's not enough IMO. Bammesk (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Poor composition, and there's already an FP of this subject, which is fine to illustrate the subject. — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Pretty good period shot. FWIW, an interesting extended link leads to the Cedar Hill Cemetery, which contains the graves of a great many notables. – Sca (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot more scratches and specks than I'd let pass, but good overall. Probably leaning support. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 23:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vinícius94: I don't think there's any chance of finishing it before it closes, but I've started. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 02:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 14:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree, much more fun. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – EV: "The first person to take aerial photographs." And for that waggish 19th-century top-hat. – Sca (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 17:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I understand why you nominated this one, Charles, and I'm not saying you were wrong (there's more EV with the tail included). But the close-up photo, also in the article, really took my breath away. It's absolutely gorgeous. Choliamb (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I originally nominated the close up at Commons FP but it was rejected. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considered the first impressionistic photo, there's a lot of choices that would normally be bad - rough paper, a slight blurriness, and other such things that are all there to give an effect of a painting.
Support. MER-C 11:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Considered the first impressionistic painting" - surely not, since it is a photo... But Support, anyway. ;-) --Janke | Talk 15:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wasn't around to point out the obscured tail and that the crop is not ideal, but I will not vote against the unanimous support at Commons. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree with the reservations expressed by Charles above, but the image still seems good enough to merit FP status. There are a lot of photos of this very photogenic bird in the Commons, but this one has the highest resolution, and the lighting is also better than most. Not to mention that this individual is exceptionally handsome (unlike the rather ratty looking individuals in some of the other photos). Choliamb (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:044 Grey-headed kingfisher at Queen Elizabeth National Park Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 16:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This user isn't a great fan of nighttime water-reflective bldg. images, which seem rather gimmicky to him. – Sca (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 01:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a larger file size (776KB), presumably higher quality, at the source link: [4]. Bammesk (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, but I DID have to re-remove a watermark. On the other hand, turns out the original removal was pretty bad, so... Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 03:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Taking of the rock Le Diamant, near Martinique, 2 June 1805 (by Auguste Etienne François Mayer).jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 16:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 07:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I've just realised there's two people with the same name, and this is the son of the one we have an article for. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 08:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2024 at 09:11:21 (UTC)
Original – A meteorite in a blue-ice area of Antarctica.
Reason
This photo shows a blue-ice area with the characteristic, wind-scoured blue ice ... except for the meteorite, a common find in such blue-ice areas, and its lee where normal snow has accumulated. It's a large image that seems to be of good quality.
Jo-Jo Eumerus, the "creator" field is for image authors/creators/photographers and such, not uploaders. I fixed it. Bammesk (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It illustrates a meteorite nicely, but doesn't add specific EV to enhance the knowledge of the blue-ice phenomenon itself. It would add lots of EV to the Meteorite article, but it's not there. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the meteorite article all it would add is a black rock in ice. Volcanic bombs and erratic blocks can sometimes also look like this...when they are in wind-scoured ice, that is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article extensively discusses the phenomenon of meteorites accumulating in blue-ice areas. I don't see why it should be considered out of place. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Flickr image description lists Nina Lanza in the image credit rather than Cindy Evans. Ras67, could you check? --Paul_012 (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of changing the image credit per the source link. Hope that's Ok. Bammesk (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know, did Nina Lanza work for NASA when she made the photo? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nina Lanza's CV [5] says she was working for the Los Alamos National Laboratory, a government agency. The nom image is published by NASA though. The flickr source [6] says the CC license is "non-commercial". I don't think Commons considers "non-commercial" claims to be valid in case of photos published by U.S. government agencies. Bammesk (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oppose – With lighting behind the subject, it's a black blob in the snow. – Sca (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The meteorite isn't the subject, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Otherworldly. --Argenberg (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a nice image of him, good personality, nicely shot, and I think it came out quite nice. Trying to clean up the gallery in the Nadar article, but that sometimes means, well... fixing the images, not just removing the bad ones.
Support – Pretty good detail for late 19th C. EV: Reigned 58 yrs. – Sca (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 19:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose But it's not the lead image for Pedro II and I guess it was not taken when he was in exile.Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: He was exiled in 1889 and the photo is 1891. He actually died that year. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 22:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sorry, misread the history. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned below, I'm going through and fixing up the Nadar images. This one isn't actually in the Nadar article anymore (it's Atelier Nadar, i.e. the studio of Nadar, so not necessarily by him. Also... it was another, much inferior copy. I've replaced that copy (and a similar image with his head in a slightly different angle) with this one. As for my speed of late - let's just say my sleep schedule's been shot to hell, so I have a lot of time where no-one's really up but me.
Comment. I don't suppose you'd be willing to desaturate the reds a tiny bit? The full-size version at the Commons looks very pink to me (the large thumbnail on this page a little less so, for some reason). Not a criticism, just a matter of personal taste. Choliamb (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little bit. I'll take it one more notch. It does change a bit between Gallica's thumbnail and the image, which is odd. @MER-C, Hamid Hassani, Charlesjsharp, Bammesk, and Choliamb:: Tweaking slightly. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 19:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2024 at 23:10:50 (UTC)
Original – Self-portrait of Paul Nadar at the office of Atelier Nadar (1894)
Reason
Another part of the cleanup of the Nadar article. An article on his son had spun off recently, and I found a picture for it. It's a short article, but should be sufficient enough.
Comment – Nice pic, but at 118 words, article is stubby. Maybe that doesn't matter in this case. – Sca (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a longer article in French, but I have very mediocre French. I try to avoid it Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 18:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moi aussi. -- Sca (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He's not that notable, is he, even afer reading the French article? Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He photographed a lot of notable people. He's the person who consolidated his father's legacy, to some extent, but he was notable photographer in his own right. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 18:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support He did a lot himself, it's just not in the Wiki article. Thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The photo is wonderful, and there's no question about notability, in my opinion. The article could easily be fleshed out as soon as someone cares to do it. A quick search reveals books devoted to Paul Nadar and the circle of Proust, Paul Nadar and the theater, and Paul Nadar's photographic adventures in Turkestan. And that's not taking into account the periodical literature. Choliamb (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2024 at 12:10:38 (UTC)
Original – Composite image of photos showing a necklace of rough diamonds in both UV and natural light
Reason
FP on Commons, created for Wiki Science Competition 2023 to show the difference between an object in two light sources in a more interesting way than the usual side-by-side images. Stable in articles with ok view stats.
Support as nominator – cart-Talk 12:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I kind of get the artistic viewpoint, but the composite just doesn't add any encyclopedic value and could be potentially misleading, especially with the artificial effect, which is not explained by the actual caption in the article. The normal montage File:Rough diamonds - necklace in UV and normal light B.jpg, while maybe not as "interesting", does a much better job of illustrating the phenomenon in a readily apparent manner. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has a better composition, but it's not as sharp or detailed at full size. There is more EV in the sharper versions [7][8] I think. Bammesk (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly why I chose this composition for the nom. The blurry part of the necklace doesn't add that much to the image. Cart(talk) 23:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support On "composite" or words to that effect being added to the descriptions in the articles. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 07:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I updated the article image captions per Paul. I am Ok with the composite image, it's easy enough to look at and interesting IMO. Bammesk (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:003 Wild Alpine Ibex Sunset Creux du Van Mont Racine Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 22:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2024 at 14:46:05 (UTC)
Original – Lion's manes and a moon jellyfish disturbing the pycnocline in the top water layer of Gullmarn fjord, Sweden. Photo taken on a sunny morning after rain, so it's likely that the top layer is warmer water with some freshwater added, making a thermocline coincide with a halocline and resulting in a very thin but visible pycnocline. This difference in density and the altered refractive index is what makes the water look "oily". The top of the largest jellyfish is breaching the surface, while its tentacles are stirring up the thin pycnocline layer.
Reason
High quality photo that shows the subject as it appears in reality and not just as a graph
Support as nominator A similar photo has been nominated before, but it failed because it wasn't sharp enough. In this photo you can even make out the heads and tails of the small daphnias, so I hope it's sharp enough. – cart-Talk 14:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Visual information is not readily intelligible to general readers/viewers. – Sca (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per previous nom, it shows the phenomenon well. Bammesk (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I would move the picture up in the article, but FP anyway. Yann (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Description is lengthy. Natsuikomin (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe not absolutely perfectly focused, but with the water and the presumptive motion, it's excellent. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 07:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]