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

Panorama of Grand Coulee Dam

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2013 at 05:48:51 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, high EV and better than the lead image in the article.

Articles in which this image appears

Grand Coulee Dam, List of conventional hydroelectric power stations

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Farwestern

• Support as nominator --BNK(talk) 05:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose Very inconsistent lighting in the sky, kinda looks like it's HDR? Either way, not FP quality. — raekyt 07:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree with Raeky, something is wrong with this. It almost looks like a stitched panorama, but with the seams very close together. Perhaps the photographer 'panned' across the sky with his finger on the shutter taking too many photos and too close together. Also probably without locking the exposure given how obvious the seams are in the sky. Just a guess though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose i don't think for a mere 120° shot there is a need to stitch these many shots together.Sanyambahga (talk) 09:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. -- mcshadypl ^TC 02:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw I withdraw my nomination per above comments.— BNK(talk) 01:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Ya'alon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2013 at 11:54:58 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Moshe Ya'alon

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Reuven Kapuscinski

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not very subtle background, but excellent photograph regardless. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--BNK(talk) 09:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great official portrait with a gentle background. -- Homo trisapiens (talk) 3:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Moshe Ya'alon.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inca Tern

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2013 at 16:13:36 (UTC)

Reason

Quality image, good angle.

Articles in which this image appears

Inca Tern, Tern, List of Charadriiformes by population

FP category for this image

Birds

Creator

Fiorellino

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 16:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems okay. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Cool bird. Only niggle is that it is half squinting from the fill pre-flash. (something to watch out for!) JJ Harrison (talk) 09:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 15:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - nice one. --BNK(talk) 09:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as above. Cowtowner (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great EV! --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Larosterna inca (Inca Tern - Inkaseeschwalbe) Weltvogelpark Walsrode 2012-015.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal Richelieu

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2013 at 15:54:59 (UTC)

Reason

High Resolution, Excellent Color balance; a highly inferior scan was being used on almost all of the pages involving Richelieu, so I've replaced them with this version; it has great encyclopedic value.

Articles in which this image appears

Cardinal Richelieu, Cardinal (Catholicism), Crown-cardinal, Luxembourg Palace, Protestant Reformation, Philippe de Champaigne, Académie française, Collection of the National Gallery, London, Portal:Biography/Selected anniversaries/September 9

FP category for this image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Political

Creator

Philippe de Champaigne

• Support as nominator --Indefatigable2 (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice.--g. balaxaZe ^{ႫႨႼႤႰႠ} 19:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose based on the painting composition itself. Note, the picture is mostly being used to illustrate the Cardinal himself. But he has a pinhead and it blends into the background. The robes are too voluminous. Just because we have a Counter-reformation artwork, does not mean it is good art.TCO (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I Withdraw my Nomination I just found a major scanning error at the bottom of the lace on the robes; this scan is no good. Indefatigable2 (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Peter the Great of Russia

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2013 at 13:05:44 (UTC)

Reason

At 1,200 × 1,687 pixels, this image is on the small side; however, there are several reasons why I have come to the conclusion that this image of Peter the Great is without doubt the best choice for FP status. If the size is too much of an obstacle, fine; but I feel the worth and encyclopedic value of this image easily overrides that, so I decided to bring it here. These aforesaid reasons are:

1.) This portrait, unlike the many others of Peter the Great that are of similar, though ubiquitously lesser, technical acumen, was actually painted during his lifetime, circa 1717. Its colors and contrast are excellent, especially when one looks at the other versions and scans of this painting. This particular portrait has been duplicated in paint, but this is clearly the best and most balanced version. One looks at the others and readily sees this shine above. Besides, even if these other versions and scans were equal to this in composition, they are all of lower resolution on Wikipedia. Larger scans of the inferior versions can be found, but they are not drastically larger, and, regardless, pale next to this piece.

2.) Another portrait of Peter the Great, perhaps famous, is the one executed by Paul Delaroche in 1838: [1]. However, besides being painted around 113 years after Peter the Great's death, the better version of this painting, (still, I feel, plainly inferior to Nattier's) which is the one I have linked to, can only be found in a small size. The larger version, here: [2], --still smaller than the scan of Nattier's portrait-- seems as though it is actually a copy of the original, and has a rough, unfinished look, negating its encyclopedic value and making it, in my opinion, even a tad cartoonish. Nattier wins again, easily.

3.) This portrait is an excellent illustrator of Peter's personality and governmental philosophy; he wears handsome western European style armour, signifying his place as the Russian ruler who officially displaced 'Tsar' as the monarch's title in favor of 'Emperor.' Upon his pauldron over his left shoulder, is emblazoned the star of the Order of St. Andrew, the first and most illustrious Russian chivalric order, established by Peter the Great himself to inculcate a sense of loyalty and pride, save land and money, and further adopt the ideas and customs of western Europe, all of which are representative of his approach to ruling. His sword is prominently featured, just as in the Delaroche portrait, but in this portrait there is a significant addition: the Tsar wears a flowing white sash about his waist that is far more prominent than the similar sash in the Delaroche portrait; in the Russian context, the white is essential, as it symbolizes both divine right monarchy and divine purpose. Similarly, the blue sash of the Order of St. Andrew is a reflection of state legitimacy, and, combined with the red plumes, comes together to a white, blue and red, signifying the Russian flag that Peter introduced as one of the main points of his reign. Once one focuses on this painting, one sees that it really is far superior to not just many historical portraits, but most portraits in general. It adds immense value to its articles, is very illustrative, and, notwithstanding its smaller size, is a very fine image in many regards.

Articles in which this image appears

Peter the Great, History of Western civilization, History of Russia, Treaty of Constantinople (1700)

FP category for this image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures#People

Creator

Jean-Marc Nattier

• Support as nominator --Indefatigable2 (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While I agree that this is probably the right portrait if one were to be featured, it's not up to snuff size wise. Firstly, I expect that this, like most portraits of royalty, is quite large and we should expect the resolution of the reproduction to reflect that. Secondly, if you compare it to the other paintings of royalty already featured, it's clear that the image is well below those standards. So while it's valuable for illustrating the article, it's not feature-worthy until a better quality scan becomes available. Cowtowner (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My own feelings, perhaps; better to be scrupulous than not, for sure. Indefatigable2 (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• WITHDRAW I wish to withdraw my nomination. This scan is not up to par, and this painting isn't going anywhere. We can wait for a better one. Indefatigable2 (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Ninth Wave

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2013 at 23:34:09 (UTC)

Reason

The painting is a one of the most prominent marine paintings of all time. Note that it was selected as picture of the day on Wikimedia Commons on August 18, 2010 and is a FP on Tamil WP.

Articles in which this image appears

The Ninth Wave, Ivan Aivazovsky

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Ivan Aivazovsky

• Support as nominator --Երևանցի ^talk 23:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose [original] Per my talk page comments from a short while ago. In brief: over-saturated. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added an edit using the museum photographs as a guideline. I cannot guarantee my colors are correct (I could not gauge the yellows properly), unfortunately, as I've never seen the painting, but looking at an Aivazovsky gallery, I don't see anything extremely saturated as the original image is. Also, it's pretty well known that sometimes my uploads have issues when the original image doesn't have an embedded color profile, so if my edit (sRGB) looks absolutely bizarre, let me know. I desaturated reds, yellows, cyans. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've gone substantially too far, unfortunately. Compare http://www.artsstudio.com/reproductions/paintings/aiv_9thwave-000-0.jpg - probably the site I'd trust most on the colours. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely and opposed below. I uploaded the image with reservations. I despise the original image, it looks like it went through a digital fire and any information is irrecoverable. I was trying to make more of a point and should've just left my original statement stand. However, I'm crossing my fingers that these gorgeous paintings get scanned properly someday. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support edited version. I agree with the above statements regarding the color. The edited version is more aligned with the actual painting. Proudbolsahye (talk) 09:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Both The original is too saturated, and I think the colour is out of wack on the edit too. It is too purple for a start. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose both The original is VASTLY over saturated, and any attempt to "fix" it will never result in an accurate color rendition. This is a picture of the actual painting, as you can see nether of these pictures comes close to the correct colors. — raekyt 15:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both Even my own :) I agree completely with JJ Harrison and Raeky. I tried my best but I also don't like the original scan at all, the image just seemed destroyed, either by the over saturation or over contrast or maybe jpg artifacting and graininess, and I did upload the image not with a smile on my face but wondering if I should have even been doing that at all. This painting (actually most of Aivazovsky's paintings) need an extremely high-resolution professional treatment. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both per above. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both per above -- mcshadypl ^TC 02:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rufous-throated Partridge

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2013 at 09:37:01 (UTC)

Reason

High quality photo taken at the top of Thailand's highest mountain, Doi Inthanon. The tail behind the tree evinces the shy nature. I took this photo by waiting strategically in freezing-19-°C temperatures with a hide after spotting a small flock.

Articles in which this image appears

Rufous-throated Partridge

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While the quality is good, ultimately the bird is missing a tail and its feet, which is too much in my mind to be featured. Also, the shy nature of the bird isn't discussed in the article and even if it were, I'd be inclined to say that this would still be a bird standing behind a tree more than hiding or exhibiting some sort of self-evident behaviour. Cowtowner (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Prefer a picture that shows the full bird. Feet still acceptable, but tail part is totally missing in pic. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 15:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Call me nuts but I get to claim righteous ignorance here. I like birds and most of the time, I don't give a damn about the tail. Perhaps EV is hiding behind the tree, but perhaps not. Until a better picture comes along (good luck), I find this photograph to be eye-catching and kind of cool. I don't get the "shy" feeling from this image either, but the bird appears to be on its way to work, unlike other photographs where they're just sort of staring like they're in a coma. So the subtle sense of action kind of makes up for the lack of tail. As a bird layperson, I think this has EV. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You might not give a damn about the tail, but the encyclopedia does. In a photograph like this not showing the whole animal inevitably diminishes the EV. It leaves the question (and it sounds ridiculous) "How does the bird end?" unanswered. Cowtowner (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The pedant in me feels the need to point out that no photo can show more than 50% of an animal. Anyway, why is it that the parts obscured in the 'bird on stick' case are rarely worried about? The person likely to be reading the article would be most concerned with plumage features used to identify it. The tail is not important to differentiate it from other members of the genus. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd point out in reply that most animals are pretty symmetrical, so 50% is sufficient. If by bird on stick, you mean perched, I'd say (and having looked through your FP uploads) that they're usually much less obscured than this one. 99% (if not all) of your previous bird FPs and the ones in the gallery purporting to be body shots have their tails. As for the person reading this article, they'd firstly be likely frustrated by the fact that it is rather stubby and then maybe kind of concerned that the bird is missing its stub. The gist of this is that I think a bird missing its tail is diminished in its EV and out of line with the standards that have been established for this kind of picture, in part due to the fact that your other contributions have set an exemplary and high standard. Cowtowner (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Tomer T (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Great picture, good quality, but more artistic than encyclopedic. The full bird must be showing. Don't get me wrong, there is value to this image, but is it one of the finest images on the English Wikipedia? No. This subject could be executed better.Indefatigable2 (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chestnut-tailed Minla

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2013 at 09:40:18 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, easily the best availible image.

Articles in which this image appears

Bar-throated Minla

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Cowtowner (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nev1 (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 15:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Simply gorgeous. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-Per nom. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as above. J Milburn (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Excellent image! --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Commendable photograph. Indefatigable2 (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Minla strigula - Doi Inthanon.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hooded Pitta

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2013 at 09:43:03 (UTC)

Reason

Another colourful Pitta. I got seriously lucky with some of these a while back. High quality, sharp image. The two second exposure is mostly a fluke!

Articles in which this image appears

Hooded Pitta

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, another beauty pageant contestant (although I wonder why modern cameras still can't entirely focus on small objects like these). Brandmeister^talk 09:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Because physics. Going off the exif data and this calculator at f/4 with a 500mm focal length and the subject 6.47m away with JJ's camera there's 2.84cm of depth of field--which is smaller than the bird is. Cowtowner (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming a perfectly spherical bird in a vacuum... J Milburn (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone, somewhere has probably decided that's animal cruelty, but I'd be curious to see one anyways. Cowtowner (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Cowtowner (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 15:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support　Two second exposure time! Maybe this bird was waiting for you ✿ --Laitche (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Eternal Support for two-second exposure – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as above. J Milburn (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Two second exposure?? A fluke but also a bit of an accident, surely? Completely inappropriate shutter speed/ISO. :) I'm shocked that you didn't get any blur. Even if you used mirror lock up, there must be some sort of vibration (wind, etc) in two seconds...? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My newish tripod is pretty rock solid (gitzo GT-5532LS). I broke the old one. But for this shot I was dealing with a broken (read: wobbling) tripod head. Sharp shots around 1/15th were proving difficult. Since the bird was sitting extremely still for a few seconds at a time I tried a longer exposure with a remote release and live view to avoid mirror slap. A two second shot can have less blur because there is time for vibration to die out. Eventually I'll get a new gimbal, when I can afford it. Since then I've made makeshift repairs. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent. Indefatigable2 (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pitta sordida - Sri Phang Nga.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Skudina

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2013 at 12:48:42 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Ekaterina Skudina

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

Platon Shilikov

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, quite nice (the framing may be slightly tight, but it doesn't bother me). Brandmeister^talk 13:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fantastic, very interesting portrait. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like it. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Brilliant to have these photographs, and featuring the strongest of them may help encourage other organisations to donate their work, too. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lively portrait and very high quality. -- Homo trisapiens (talk) 3:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support Image is great, just a little low on the EV side, seeing that the article is so short. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not part of the criteria. There is no EV difference for an individual who has a stub article and one who has a featured article.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:SkudinaEkaterina5.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ethel Waters

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2013 at 12:55:12 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV. Notable person, photograph by notable photographer.

Articles in which this image appears

Ethel Waters, +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

William P. Gottlieb

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Image could use some restoration. Lots of dirt and spots throughout. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could have a go, but I'm half-way through Herschel, so it might be a little bit. Suspend? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem. Thanks Adam. Tomer T (talk) 08:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hexaplex cichoreum

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2013 at 13:05:05 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Hexaplex cichoreum

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Molluscs

Creator

Archaeodontosaurus

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from a member of WIkipProject Gastropods: It's a nice shell and in good condition. One problem is that the black background makes it hard to see where the black spines end. I might suggest a different color background. Invertzoo (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from a member of WIkipProject Gastropods: Looks good, but I have a suggestion. Both shell views are somewhat misaligned vertically. Try following this featured picture's example [3]. Black background is OK for me, it's the usual background for colored plates in scientific papers... You could try grey or navy blue too. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Herschel

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2013 at 13:20:06 (UTC)

Reason

The picture doesn't excell quality-wise, but is a highly valuable document: a picture taken in the early days of photography, which depicts one of the most important figures of the time - John Herschel, who also contributed to the beginning of photography. Shot by one of the most important photographers of the time - Julia Margaret Cameron.

Articles in which this image appears

John Herschel

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Julia Margaret Cameron (edit by MichaelMaggs)

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — High EV photograph of an important historical figure taken by a major photographic pioneer. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral bordering on weak oppose. Question Would a restored version of the original photograph be better? I can't volunteer to do it due to time constraints unfortunately. I find this image to be drastically too dark, losing details. Someone tried to make a dramatically lighted photograph out of a regular studio portrait. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is a crop of the full image and is overly contrasted at the expense of much of the original detail. This gives a better idea of what we should be working from for restoration and featuring. Cowtowner (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is suspect that this image from the Metropolitan Museum is also the best scan that is available. Cowtowner (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• On it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as above- looking forward to seeing what Adam can do. J Milburn (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Considering the age of the photograph, if this was the best we could get, I'd support. I'll wait for Adam's version before casting a vote. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is NOT done, but here's a progress report: File:Julia Margaret Cameron - John Herschel (Metropolitan Museum of Art copy, restored).png Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd Oppose the current version, but I Support the one that Adam Cuerden ^(talk) is working on. Indefatigable2 (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Navy F-4K Phantom II FG.1

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2013 at 14:15:42 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution image of aircraft; best available image of Royal Navy Phantom

Articles in which this image appears

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in UK service, Fleet Air Arm

FP category for this image

Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air

Creator

US Navy

• Support as nominator --Hammersfan (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Doesn't meet size standards and the nosecone is cut off. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose missing tip of the nose. Sanyambahga (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose-Nosecone is only partially visible. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Cut off nosecone. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, and New Image There are most certainly better images available. I find this take-off one decidedly more suitable, and it has the bonus of showing the plane in action. It is dynamic. It seems to be in the same series of images, so I'll put it up here so you all can see and appraise it. I would perhaps consider a Support of the take-off one. Indefatigable2 (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the above suggestion Hammersfan (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 11 Buzz Aldrin Photograph

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2013 at 03:25:24 (UTC)

Reason

The famous Apollo 11 photograph of Buzz Aldrin taken by Neil Armstrong, with Armstrong and the Apollo 11 lander visible in Aldrin's visor reflection, and one of the lander's legs partially visible in the foreground

Articles in which this image appears

1960s, Apollo 11, Buzz Aldrin, Cold War, Examination of Apollo Moon photographs, Extra-vehicular activity, History of spaceflight, History of the United States (1964–80), Human spaceflight, List of spaceflight records, Moon landing conspiracy theories, Of a Fire on the Moon, Omega Speedmaster, Space exploration, Terrestrial Analogue Sites

FP category for this image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Others

Creator

Neil Armstrong

• Support as nominator --Indefatigable2 (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — A truly iconic image. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• HOLD ON! It appears this image is already featured...the altered version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg (See caption to the right...) What should be done? Should this be a de-list and replace, or should it be left as is? Indefatigable2 (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be changed to de-list and replace After reading some more, I have come to this decision. The original is more evenly lit, and, as the authentic exposure, is more honest; the edited version cuts out a very important antenna on the space suit, just to make the picture seem more 'harmonious.' This original is encyclopedia material, not the altered NASA publicity version, which has sadly given fuel to the hoaxers. Indefatigable2 (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this nomination would be withdrawn and an official delist & replace nomination created. Both are archived separately. But you might wait for a more experienced opinion. At the moment, delists are still given a longer nomination period. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm in favor of withdrawing this nom and starting a D&R. That said, don't count me as a more experienced opinion :D --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I Withdraw my Nomination And I will create a delist and replace. Indefatigable2 (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro II of Brazil in 1887

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2013 at 16:08:49 (UTC)

Reason

The high quality of the photography is clear, as it portrays the soon-to-be-dethroned monarch looking tired and resigned to the end of the monarchy,

Articles in which this image appears

Pedro II of Brazil

FP category for this image

History

Creator

Lucien Walery (1863-1935) Lecen

• Support as nominator --Lecen (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose, suggest speed close...again. As I pointed out at your last nomination we have already featured a picture of Pedro II which is of much better quality and has effectively the same EV as the ones you are nominating. This one, like the last, does not meet the resolution requirements and is damaged beyond all hope of restoration. I understand that you are apparently passionate about the topic but I suggest you look through out galleries to understand what we expect for historical images and then try and utilize the featured picture which is already available since you have not been able to find an alternative. Cowtowner (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Cowtowner. I would've opposed anyway. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not nearly as good as the current FP of Pedro II. Is there a high resolution scan of a painting of him in his coronation robes or in full uniform? We could feature that... Indefatigable2 (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and agree with speedy close--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, below size requirements. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ann Remick

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2013 at 06:48:51 (UTC)

Reason

High quality scan of 1974 portrait photograph of American actress Lee Remick, photographed by Allan Warren. (Thanks to Cowtowner for introducing me to these photographs.) Not as large in size as some of his other scans, but I chose it as my favorite portrait of his. Spots/stains and hairs were removed from entire photograph. No color profile added, but please let me know if image appears bizarre or vastly different from the original to you. I replaced the same image in her article.

Articles in which this image appears

Lee Remick

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Allan Warren, photography; Keraunoscopia, clean up

• Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Beautiful -BNK(talk) 07:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think I see JPEG compression artifacts around her nose (highlights look a little blown there too). Otherwise fantastic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Crisco 1492, updated, can you check and see if I got what you were referring to? Tip of nose especially. Nose glare wasn't really blown out, but I diminished it a smidge, but this was a separate layer so I can easily remove it if it's unnecessary. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Yeah, that looks much better — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Brilliant. J Milburn (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Cowtowner (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lee Ann Remick, London, 1974.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of snow leopard

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2013 at 07:21:42 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality and high EV for the description section.

Articles in which this image appears

Snow leopard, List of Indian state animals, Wangchuck Centennial Park

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Tambako The Jaguar on Flickr from Switzerland and edited by Niabot

• Support either as nominator --BNK(talk) 07:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Unedited Original I didn't know that the background was changed—BNK(talk) 16:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support wow. Sanyambahga (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is created by Tambako The Jaguar, Switzerland and edited by Niabot. JKadavoor Jee 10:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry. I didn't observe. I corrected it. Thanks for pointing out. --BNK(talk) 11:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good head closeup. Brandmeister^talk 10:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unedited original, I was unaware of it. Brandmeister^talk 12:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The sharpness! --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Edited image (original nom) per edited background. Weak Support unedited original I really do wish crop wasn't as tight on the chin. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unedited original Excellent portrait, beautiful animal. Cowtowner (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support UNEDITED Original, Strong Oppose Edited The change in background is needlessly artificial, and, regardless of that, the edit removes essential definition around the edge of the leopard, especially at the bottom around its neck and at the top across its crown, where the fine and encyclopedically valuable, especially for those studying the animal, outline of fur has been corrupted into a nondescript grey-beige blur and cut off, respectively. I understand that the editor desired to take the animal out of the zoo and place it in its natural habitat, perhaps in a spirit of adding relevancy and value to the image, but this is far too drastic, and, as aforementioned, needlessly and arbitrarily robs the image of far more encyclopedic value than it could ever hope to add. And all that for a white background of snow. This is not the image that was taken; it was never a scene in reality. The background in the original zoo image, as such, is too unremarkable to make any detraction; it's not as if there's a handler or steel cage distractingly juxtaposed there. On the contrary, the original version is more defined, more truthful and sincere to its viewers, and, in my opinion, makes the snow leopard stand out more in definition; the original pulls attention more, looks cleaner, and exudes a certain kind of class that the edited version does not. I sincerely hope others follow my lead here. However, if you were to place the original original image, which I find both dazzling and savagely beautiful, in place of this art project of the digital age (and I am sincerely sorry if I offend the editor; this just has to be said), you will then have my unadulterated Support. Indefatigable2 (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have replaced the edited image with the unedited original in all the pages where the edited image was being used. – BNK(talk) 01:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Good catch. I was actually writing a reply thinking that the only alteration had been the addition of space to the bottom and I ECed with this. I'm rather glad I did now. Loss of detail doesn't justify the gain; I also don't think the tightness at the bottom (in the original original) is a major concern. Cowtowner (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes! Actually, the tightness could be considered a benefit; it frames the animal's face very nicely, and draws the viewer in more. Nothing is lost from tightness on this photo, but much is lost from amending and doctoring it. The image with the white background is two photographs arbitrarily melded into one; it is a visual lie of sorts. Indefatigable2 (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't get me wrong. I think a little more space under the chin would make for a better picture, but the condition of the rest of the image negates that value. What I mean to say is that I don't think the framing is so tight as to be reason for opposing the image. Cowtowner (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose edited images as such have no place among other FP's. -- mcshadypl ^TC 02:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And the unedited image? Cowtowner (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I prefer the original original, but I want to know what the creature looks like apart from its head. A photograph of the mountain lion's head could possibly give the wrong impression of what the cat looks like since its head is so teeny-tiny compared to its immense body. I would argue the same thing here. Plus its fur patterns is extremely important. Nice picture, but it's a floating head. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unedited original Tomer T (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Snow leopard portrait.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugandan Coat of Arms

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2013 at 16:46:30 (UTC)

Reason

I feel heraldry and vexillology is a underrepresented topic at FP.

Uganda, Religion in national symbols

FP category for this image

Diagrams, drawings, and maps

Creator

Sodacan

• Support as nominator --QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment That's way too many articles to list for anyone to make any sense of it. Please list the very top article this image has the most EV in, or two articles. More articles does not equal excellent EV, and can apparently sometimes diminish EV. But the image seems fine to me. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment AFAIK for the reasons of fair representation we don't feature modern emblems and flags - nearly all of them pass the size requirements and it's only a matter of personal taste rather than EV (but historical insignia are welcome). Brandmeister^talk 10:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends, surely. Generally speaking, I'd say we should go with a minimal-level-of-artistry criteria. Something like the Japanese, Swiss, or English flags (simple red and white designs) couldn't pass; something like this should, at least in theory, be eligible.

Now, whether we should promote it depends on a lot of things, such as fidelity and artistry of the reproduction. Although, in theory, coat of arms can be drawn a lot of different ways and still be valid, that also rather behoves us not to promote a reproduction unless it's particularly good. I'm not entirely convinced by the fur shading (particularly on the rear leg) of whatever the antelope-like creature on the left is (There's a lot of animals that look a bit like that). I'd also say this needs far better documentation - the full listout of the arms grant should be included in the image description. As such, I lean oppose, but am open to arguments for why the shading is valid, such as demonstrating it's how the stylization is near-inevitably realised. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per nominator. Also, good EV and excellent quality. -- Homo trisapiens (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.136.126 (talk) [reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canary Wharf skyline

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2013 at 18:32:23 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Canary Wharf, +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Diliff

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice, artistically. Has good EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Oppose both per the below discussion on reduced EV due to the buildings' color not showing at night. Option 2 is not good enough for FP IMO. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • By that logic the daylight shot should be penalized for not showing the lights. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support— BNK(talk) 04:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments More buildings in the picture would have been better. extra999 (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I find trouble with this. Perhaps a picture during daylight hours would be better; with the nighttime one, one cannot tell what the shades of metal and glass on the different buildings are. It's a wonderful picture, but perhaps we could consider this second option (or one similar to it), taken during daylight hours, instead. Indefatigable2 (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Original I am convinced; the trouble I had above is over. This is FP material. The detail is excellent. Indefatigable2 (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both alt (option 2) I'm not seeing the EV here. I agree with Indefatigable2, and would prefer a daylight photo to show the wharf in action. But alt is a snapshot photograph, and the night image, while very nice and sharp, shows me the outlines of the buildings, but not much else. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Original. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Changed my mind regarding its EV. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm with Keraunoscopia- while the original is quite striking (a good Commons candidate), the second has the encyclopedic value. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay so I'm not crazy. I agree, it's a pretty picture but my original opinion wasn't way off the chart. I'll oppose both and be done with it. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This business of denigrating the EV of nighttime skylines is asinine. The Canary Wharf skyline is distinctive both during the day and night. The day one isn't better, it is simply different. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

F-14 Tomcat and F-4 Phantom

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2013 at 13:15:59 (UTC)

Reason

Size criteria; clear example of two generations of US interceptors; clear resolution; high contrast between background colour (blue) and subjects

Articles in which this image appears

No. 19 Squadron RAF, McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in UK service, McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators, F-14 Tomcat operational history

FP category for this image

Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air

Creator

Camera Operator: LCDR Dave Parsons, US Navy

• Support as nominator --Hammersfan (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments Still trying to wrap my head around this one. There is the vignetting (likely from the window from which the picture was taken) that I don't like and feel should be removed. I'm not too sure on EV here; to me, the image does not represent either aircraft too well, and only marginally better at showing both. The F-14's tail covering part of the F-4 is not ideal. Also, the picture having been taken from the side, there is not a lot of depth, making it hard to compare the aircrafts' size relative to each other. I am leaning towards opposing right now, but would like to know what others think first. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with clear contrast, good exposure, etc, but image is just soft and subjects still seem tiny within the frame. Too much dead space. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medea Statue In Batumi

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2013 at 11:57:56 (UTC)

Reason

1)It has high resolution. 2)Has a free license 3)Is among Wikipedia's best work. (Historical image, making the viewer want to know more)

Articles in which this image appears

Order of the Golden Fleece

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others

Creator

Bertramz

• Support as nominator --Balakhadze 11:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not in use on the English Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I know in first time I wanted to add this photo File:Medea Statue In Batumi.jpg but it has big incline and I changed my mind but uploaded this File:Medea Statue In Batumi (corrected_incline).jpg how do you think will it get oppose because of this little change?--g. balaxaZe ^{ႫႨႼႤႰႠ} 21:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This pic can be added in this article (I think): Order_of_the_Golden_Fleece. But I'm not sure, anyone? Godhulii 1985 (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment: Good idea, I'll do.--g. balaxaZe ^{ႫႨႼႤႰႠ} 08:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm really struggling to see the relevance in that article. What does the statue have to do with the order of chivalry? J Milburn (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is the Golden Fleece Order, that Golden Fleece comes from Colchis, where Medea lived. This statue represents all history of the Golden Fleece in connection with, this Order called itself.--g. balaxaZe ^{ႫႨႼႤႰႠ} 14:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportGeorge ^Talk 12:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Jaba1977 (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Fiqriasidamonize (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Mikheil ^Talk 13:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose EV, the article it's in it contributes very little if anything too. — raekyt 14:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this Golden Fleece and this Medea articles contributes many thing.--g. balaxaZe ^{ႫႨႼႤႰႠ} 14:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Picture is not in those articles, thus irrelevant for this discussion. — raekyt 02:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Medgeorgia (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Suspend nomination I have just nominated the image for deletion at Commons. The relevant discussion is at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Medea Statue in Batumi. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Where the hell are all these blind supports coming from? Where has this been advertised? J Milburn (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like this one bit, and have raised it on the incidents noticeboard. J Milburn (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose: Even if it was included in several articles on en-WP it is nothing more than a tourist snap shot, an underexposed poor quality picture that isn't even close to being "one of the best pictures on Wikipedia". Thomas.W (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Even ignoring the copyright issues being raised at Commons, the lighting is very poor. Virtually all detail on the face and left side of the statue is lost in shadow. --Carnildo (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted MER-C 06:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern pygmy possum

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2013 at 02:33:48 (UTC)

Reason

High EV showing the eastern pygmy possum in its natural habitat.

Articles in which this image appears

Eastern pygmy possum

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Photo by Phil Spark

• Support as nominator --ELEKHH^T 02:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The composition is simply too 'busy'. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, is different. --ELEKHH^T 13:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Diliff. Unfortunate—even though natural—surroundings. Nothing wrong with the photograph to many extents, but simply too hard to see the subject. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Diliff --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of planet sizes

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2013 at 02:46:20 (UTC)

Reason

Though not of the minimum size required, but highly encyclopaedic illustrating the sizes of the planets with good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Earth, List of examples of lengths, Solar System

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Understanding

Creator

Lsmpascal

• Support as nominator --BNK(talk) 02:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - There is no reason a comparison can't be made with proper resolution (we have tons of NASA images) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Should the dwarf planets be included? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I appreciate what's going on here, but the image is just too soft and tiny and not very well done. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, doesn't cut it. Indefatigable2 (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose there is no reason not to have a much higher resolution file that is much more sharp. Per Adam's comment, I would like the dwarf planters to be included since they are part of the solar system. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there are only five of them (I didn't know), so I agree and think this is feasible and even interesting. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This sort of thing is better illustrated with a drawing that doesn't pretend to be anything else. This image, which appears to be digitally rendered with shadowing, artificial background, etc. just doesn't make sense to me. Why go through all that work to make it look like a photo of a plastic model? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gemsbok

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2013 at 08:35:16 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Gemsbok, List of even-toed ungulates by population

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Hans Stieglitz

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Another nice find. Only thing that bugs me is the Gemsbok on the right side is not in focus. It is slightly blurry. --BNK(talk) 14:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not really convinced here. Of the 5 Gemsboks in the picture only one is shown particularly well, and it has a broken horn which I'm imagining reduces its EV. Cowtowner (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm convinced. I disagree about loss of EV. Gemsboks (all animals, in fact) aren't always perfect—life happens. I can also deduce from the other horns in the frame what the missing one should look like :) Very, very attractive image that reminds me a bit of the Burrowing owl image. My only qualm would be the slight darkness of the gemsboks. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support EV is good. Their faces (can you call them that?) are a tad too dark for my taste, I'd like more detail to be visible. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A female lion (lioness)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2013 at 14:40:30 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality and high EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Lion

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Falense

• Support as nominator --BNK(talk) 14:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I wish she filled the frame a bit more, but I have no immediate problems aside from that. Contrasts very nicely with the male lion on the article. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to weak, I do agree it's not the most amazing portrait of a lioness in the entire world but it's not awful either. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Quality is OK. EV is good. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice. --Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For an animal as majestic and photographed as a lion, I would want something more dynamic and 'wow'y --Muhammad(talk) 08:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Muhammad. Sanyambahga (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muammar Gaddafi

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2013 at 17:55:07 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, high resolution image. Easily the best available non-propaganda image where he is not wearing sunglasses, or having his head caved in (which incidentally means we won't be getting any more pictures). Definitely better than our FP of Saddam.

Articles in which this image appears

Muammar Gaddafi and 30+ others.

FP category for this image

People - Political

Creator

U.S. Navy

• Support as nominator --Cowtowner (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is excellent. Ok the focus is a few mm in front on his chin rather than his eyes but this isn't a studio shot. The conditions are unforgiving: 200mm lens, ISO 1600, 1/100s, and f/2.8 gives no depth of focus to play with. Great EV. Colin°^Talk 19:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's a peculiar pose, but a fairly important portrait and not likely to be improved on. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I'm not crazy about how serious he looks in this portrait, but then again the pose rather befits him. I doubt pictures of him smiling or laughing would have as much EV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • They should have just as much EV, because we should be striving for NPOV. But if you do a google image search, at least 80% of them have the same stern expression as in this photo, so I think it's representative. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the majority of his pictures are with the same stern expression, I'd say that's solid evidence that this has higher EV than a smiling picture of him. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I felt for a while that this should be a featured picture. Very crisp! It really shows Gaddafi characteristically. Indefatigable2 (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not perfect, but neither is the man. Visually attractive and dynamic image with perfect color palette. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but I would like to see a slightly more neutral caption when it hits the main page... J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this is likely the best we'll ever get. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Muammar al-Gaddafi at the AU summit.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Älvkarleby

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2013 at 20:16:11 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, high resolution and high EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Älvkarleby Hydroelectric Power Station

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others

Creator

Arild Vågen

• Support as nominator --ArildV (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I would have preferred better lighting on the five arches. Sanyambahga (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Original per Sanyambahga : Light is not on the subject. --ELEKHH^T 13:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I uploaded a new version, exposure fusion from two versions of the orginal file.--ArildV (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Al(l)t is that a typo? ;) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is.--ArildV (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt Tomer T (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pearl and the Wave redux

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2013 at 23:02:42 (UTC)

Reason

High quality scan of a notable artwork; image is from museum so presumably colours are accurate (was a point of contention at the first nomination)

Articles in which this image appears

The Pearl and the Wave +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Paul-Jacques-Aimé Baudry

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. If the colors are actually inaccurate, could be D&R-ed. Brandmeister^talk 10:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I'm of the view that the colours are correct. They fit with my recollection, and we have used the Prado's reproductions before which makes me inclined to employ and trust them again here. Cowtowner (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although I don't know what you all mean by "accurate colors". Color is a function of lighting, the enviroment in which the subject is viewed and the screen in which it is viewed. Tomer T (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That is true, but this was also painted with intent and the artist wanted it to look a certain way. Museums are lit accordingly. While there is no perfectly accurate rendition, there are some that are better than others, and versions can vary considerably. We should strive to find the best/most faithful/accurate one. Cowtowner (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Crisco 1492, I went to the source page and I can zoom in much farther on the painting, which would allow the painting to be (I presume) tiled and pieced together to be larger. But is this a digital zoom and therefore not accurate? Is your large upload the largest the image can get without falsifying pixel information? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• To me that looks like a digital zoom (I think I see individual pixels), but another editor would be welcome to comment. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Was waiting for a response from third party but anyway, I wish it were larger but we can always hope for the future. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. So her skin is really supposed to be green? Kaldari (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Baudry paul the wave and the pearl.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Peltz

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2013 at 02:54:05 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution portrait photograph of the budding American film actress.

Articles in which this image appears

Nicola Peltz

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Justin Campbell (photographer); Keraunoscopia (derivative)

• Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would like to support, but it looks considerably soft at full size with something that looks like jpg artefacting (not sure). Also the background color differs from the original. Brandmeister^talk 10:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original background color (blue) was involved with sockpuppetry (User:MyCanon). That, plus I nom'd the original (blue) image on Commons FPC and someone pointed out pink "ghosts" behind her hair near her neck. So I changed the background color as a sort of "can't beat 'em, join 'em" decision to hide the pink ghosts... which don't bother me. I wasn't able to get in touch with the original photographer. (Just an extra note, I did confirm the OTRS email is valid.) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pink version has obvious and poorly done colour masking. There's a pink tinted edge in the middle of her hair at the top. I would guess therefore that the blue is the true 'original' but even so, the blue version has a strange blotchy pinkness to the background, tends to get more pink the closer to the hair it gets, and is pretty badly posterised (I guses that's what you were describing as ghosts). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. A bit soft, and image quality is poor as per above comments. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose I'm not a fan of the framing which crops the top of the head.Geni (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. -- mcshadypl ^TC 01:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian General Benevolent Union

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2013 at 03:29:23 (UTC)

Reason

Great EV. Good quality. Historical significance.

Articles in which this image appears

Armenian General Benevolent Union

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Proudbolsahye

• Support as nominator --Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I feel the quality is mediocre (small size, pooled blacks, rather grainy, scratches and stains) and the EV is weak (the history section of the article is sorely lacking and underdeveloped, this isn't even the founding branch but the first European one which receives no mention whatsoever). Cowtowner (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Cowtowner --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Petra Martic Portrait, Wimbledon 2013 - Diliff.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2013 at 20:57:24 (UTC)

Reason

It's a very high resolution (for a portrait) headshot of Petra Martić, a Croatian tennis player taken at the 2013 Wimbledon Championships. It's a natural and candid photo of her taken directly after her first round match. All the important details are in clear focus (you can even see the drops of sweat on her face). There's a little noise on her forehead under the hat but at reasonable viewing distances, this isn't an issue IMO.

Articles in which this image appears

Petra Martić

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I clicked on this to see the full size image and got a screen full of teeth. She needs to work on her flossing technique ;-). Very good. Colin°^Talk 22:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel bad for the poor girl, she had no idea she was going to be subjected to the critiques of FPC when she woke up that morning. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for the sweat drops and the dental plaque. Sanyambahga (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• OpposeI find this commentary off putting. I'd be inclined to fix that for her instead of subjecting her to ridicule. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me get a toothbrush. I do kid, support. I imagine if I were to have played a professional tennis match, my oral hygiene would not be in a condition that I'd like Diliff pointing his camera at me, either. Cowtowner (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Fantastic portrait. Great work. Jujutacular (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice job, Diliff. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as it meets criteria. Great image. On the context of her dental hygiene, I would just point everyone to WP:MUG. The discussion on whether or not this image should be used should be held in her article's talk page. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw my vote while I think about the edit. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 00:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, made up my mind. Oppose original due to shadows on eyes, and Oppose Edit due to aggressive Noise Reduction. I Support the downsampled edit.--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very detailed, but the lighting is poor and could have been easily fixed with fill flash. It is way too dark around the eyes and forehead. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's like saying your bird photos aren't detailed enough because you didn't get close enough and had to crop it, so therefore you should have used a bigger lens. ;) This was not a planned, posed portrait - it was taken at a sporting event and flash photography is not allowed. Sometimes you have to deal with the conditions as they are, not as you'd like them to be ideally. I don't think the darkness around the eyes and forehead is a dealbreaker anyway. It's normal for caps to shade the eyes. You can still see the detail and colour of the eyes and there's a subtle transition due to the diffused overcast lighting. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A selective shadows adjustment in that area gives good results. --Muhammad(talk) 15:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you show an example? The image already has lifted shadows, hence the noise... Any more and I thought the noise levels were unacceptable but I suppose selective noise reduction could also be applied after lifting further. In any case, I still think the shadows under the cap are not excessive... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sample edit uploaded. Personally though, the shadows are not a problem for me either --Muhammad(talk) 00:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit The lighting fix really makes a big difference. upstateNYer 02:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. The edit itself is drastically reduced in size for sample purposes, but I would support an edit. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think if the full resolution sample edit image was uploaded, you'd really see just how bad the noise is in the shadows though. It was already at the limit of what I'd call acceptable, but lifting it further just doesn't work IMO. I've done a similar thing to what Muhammad has done and at 100%, the noise is just awful and uncorrectable (it becomes banded and blobby, as most shadows do when approaching the lowest values the sensor could capture). Muhammad has done a good job but he's hidden the noise considerably by downsampling it. So the question is, do we want a portrait with shadow adjustment just barely at the minimum resolution, or do we want the full resolution version with heavier shadows...? I don't think we can have both resolution and lighter shadows, realistically. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case the down sampling is well justified and the need for the full resolution is debatable. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see why downsampling is "well justified" unless we're back to the teeth thing again. Thanks Muhammad for uploading the high-rez. I compared the two. While I really like the lightened shadows, I'm not a fan of the amount of noise reduction. Maybe a compromise between the two—less brightness, but less NR. I'll stick with my original vote though. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Down sampled justified if necessary to eliminate the noise. Concur with assessment of too aggressive NR in the full res. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• High res edit uploaded over the old edit. --Muhammad(talk) 13:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though at thumbnail size it looks better, the NR is too strong in the edit. I'm torn. Not sure what is more important, if less shadow or higher res... Will think about this. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 00:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • After some thinking, I've decided the downsampled edit is probably the best of what we've seen, and have changed my vote accordingly. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any version --Muhammad(talk) 19:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose edit the NR is too strong and the lightening too much and not even -- if you want to simulate the effect of a fill-light, then her neck needs lightened too. Her forehead is just a bit too light now. But also importantly, the colourspace has changed form sRGB to AdobeRGB, which should never be used for JPGs on the internet. If you want to use AdobeRGB, use it for tiffs when sending files to a print lab and nowhere else. It will nearly always produce the wrong colours for people with dumb browsers/tablets and will produce colour banding for everyone else. Colin°^Talk 19:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Petra Martic Portrait, Wimbledon 2013 - Diliff.jpg -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Original is the only one with a clear consensus for it; consensus seems to be against the edit.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Paul I of Russia

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2013 at 07:54:43 (UTC)

Reason-and some History

An excellent and encyclopedically valuable image of Emperor Paul I (1754-1801), painted ca. 1800 by Vladimir Lukich Borovikovsky (Владимир Лукич Боровиковский), the principal Russian portrait painter of the turn of the 19th century. The portrait shows Paul I characteristically himself, as he was known for his high enthusiasm for military pageantry and pomp. It also shows him wearing the famous Imperial Crown of Russia, and, even more significantly, shows him wearing the robes of the Grand Master of the Knights Hospitaller, a position he was elected to in October 1789 after Napoleon seized Malta from the knights in June of that same year. His membership was a notable element of his reign. The Priory of St. Petersburg had declared in September 1789 that the former Grand Master had betrayed the Order by selling Malta to Napoleon, and thus decided to elect the Emperor Paul I as their new leader. Thus was born the Russian tradition of the Knights Hospitaller. This image of Paul I also shows him wearing the collar of the Knights Hospitaller and the collar of the Order of St. Andrew, the highest order of chivalry of the Russian Empire and also, after being reinstated, of today's Russia. Paul I strove to make the government meet his ideals of knighthood. Such ideals are reflected in official art, of which, for Paul I, this painting may be the most exceptional representative. He wanted to form the Russian nobles into a sort of loyal chivalric class, an ideal which he almost seems to demonstrate here with his elevated posture and gesturing with the scepter of state. This image is of a good quality, and does an indispensable job of illustrating this interesting ruler and his singular character.

Articles in which this image appears

Paul I of Russia, List of Russian rulers, List of rulers of Estonia

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Royalty

Creator

Vladimir Borovikovsky

• Support as nominator --Indefatigable2 (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is below the minimum size requirements (not by much though) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, but it's probably of sufficient quality and sharpness not to be a major factor. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the size of the painting? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The best I can guess is something larger with the proportions of 49x33.8 cms, as Borovikovsky did a similar portrait of Paul I with these dimensions. This portrait is currently at the State Russian Museum in St. Petersburg, I believe, but I cannot find enough information on it. Indefatigable2 (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not, in the end, that I think it really matters, as this is definitely the most descriptive and well-executed portrait of this figure that exists, in what is most probably its highest definition and best color balance to be found on the internet. Indefatigable2 (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It does matter, in the end. The original size of the painting is proportional to the resolution we should expect. Also, merely being the best available on the internet does not automatically equate to being of FP quality. Cowtowner (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you, Cowturner. Precisely my point. If the original painting is like 10*6 cm, okay this resolution is certainly nice. If the painting is life size? The resolution isn't up to par. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are of course both right, "best on internet" is by no means a criterion for an FP; that would make for many poor FP's. However, in saying "not that I think it really matters," I was echoing Diliff, in that this image's color balance has been made effectively as best as possible and has been improved drastically over its former version; the image is very sharp with no artefacts that I can see, unlike the Horatio Nelson portrait that was just made an FP about a day ago, which, although of a higher resolution than this image, had some noticable digital artefacts when viewed on full size. Even though it is on the small side, I feel this image is sharp enough to pass muster, and is definitely large enough to make out the fine details. Even if the portrait in person were a larger one, I feel it should not be disqualified for this reason; if a better scan comes up in the future, we can, just like the voters on the Horatio Nelson portrait, agree to replace it in the future. But on its own I feel the color balance of the painting and the sharpness of the digital image negates the small deficiency in size. This was my thought. For me, this particular image left a significant impression, as it illustrates its subject in a way that is rare among portraits; it makes it 'fine' and a 'significant' contribution. That was why I felt it had high EV. Indefatigable2 (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't think anyone is doubting that this is a good picture and of high EV. We're concerned about the resolution. My experience with portraits of nobility (say, Napoleon) is that the portraits are generally a little larger than life. If that's true, this resolution (although quite sharp) is on the low side. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Good point Crisco. It could be that I'm having a lackluster moment (always a possibility), but I can't find dimensions for this painting... They're just not coming up in any of my searches on the Russian government art databases, so we may have to go by what we have here. In my opinion, I think this image meets the checklist. Consider this: hypothetically, would you prefer a larger image (like the Nelson one you put up) with some artifacts, or one that is smaller with less artifacts (such as this, it seems), the sharpness being the same on both? What would make the more worthwhile image? On another note, consider what user 'Stigmatella aurantiaca' said when voting on Nelson, it is 'good enough and the best for now.' Would you think that that is the case for this one, or do you believe it best to wait it out and see? I for one think we'll be hard pressed to see a scan as good as this anytime soon, and that this deserves an elevated status. Indefatigable2 (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • One of the key differences between the Nelson portrait and this one is that Nelson portrait was 63.5 × 76.2 cm (i.e. nowhere near life size), so even at 1,500 * 2,000 or what have you it would have been reasonably big. As for this painting, I'm probably leaning weak support unless we find that it is quite small. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I FOUND IT I finally discovered the dimensions of the portrait, after looking though many pages in the virtual gallery of the Russian Museum. The portrait is housed currently in the Mikhailovsky Palace at the Russian Museum in St. Petersburg. It can be viewed in the virtual gallery hanging on the wall at this web page: http://www.virtualrm.spb.ru/rmtour/zal-12.html Make your decisions. Indefatigable2 (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I'm getting a 404 error. Could you put the dimensions on the file description page? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Alas, there is no concrete data, only a high-res panorama of the room the picture is hanging in. I found this link as well: http://www.saint-petersburg.com/museums/russian-museum/main-collection-mikhailovsky-palace/  ; the Paul I portrait is hanging in the second image down to the left of the doorway. Indefatigable2 (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Oh yeah, that's either life size or otherwise very close to it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose: Good reproduction, beautiful painting. But considering the actual size of the painting (looks to be close to 2m tall) the lack of resolution is just too offputting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good reproduction. Colour balance and blacks seem accurate. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Basically on the grounds of the resolution (and the supposition of its size as well as the standards of the gallery). It's the best for now and valuable, but not good enough. Cowtowner (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above discussion on resolution. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Cowtowner and Keraunoscopia--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European wildcat

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2013 at 10:59:44 (UTC)

Reason

Great photo, high quality and showing the whole body of the cat. Probably better than the current FP of European wildcat.

Articles in which this image appears

European wildcat

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Lviatour

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support But I notice the two cats are of different color phases. Perhaps they both could be FP's, with yours as the main one? They could have distinct EV's; the other is from Hanover, and yours, it seems, is from the great Kingdom of Belgium. The article talks about distinct subspecies; perhaps this comes into play? If so, it should be included and emphasized. If I had to choose, it would be yours, as even though the focus isn't perfect it is more informative. Indefatigable2 (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note, because you refered the currently discussed picture as "mine": I'm not the photographer of any of them (but I'm the nominator of both of them). Tomer T (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, almost entirely in focus, high EV. Brandmeister^talk 17:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brandmeister's right; I rescind what I said above about the focus, which is great (I should have said digital artifacts, which are mildly present, but make no real difference here); I reiterate, this image has a higher EV than the current wildcat FP; I love it; I would feel comfortable with this replacing the older image as a FP, as it would be an improvement. Indefatigable2 (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support—BNK(talk) 09:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good lighting and detail. Framing not perfect but good enough. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like this picture. Even though the description isn't difficult to figure out for non-French-speaking people, I wouldn't mind if someone added an English description if it's going to be featured in English. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Meow meow meooow meow, meow meow. Meow meow meow. Cacophony (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Felis silvestris silvestris Luc Viatour.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chat Flycatcher

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2013 at 16:27:58 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Chat Flycatcher

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Yathin sk

• Support as nominator --BNK(talk) 16:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 15:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support bird. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice photo. extra999 (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Sharpness could be better in the tail, and I wouldn't mind more resolution, but for small, active birds, this is ample. Support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bradornis infuscatus.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volkswagen Plant, Wolfsburg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2013 at 13:51:33 (UTC)

Reason

Excellent picture, with high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Wolfsburg

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Richard Bartz

• Support as nominator --ELEKHH^T 13:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seems good to me.— BNK(talk) 01:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Colour balance seems way off, far too warm. But should be easily fixed. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been there and the image does not strike me as unnaturally warm, although in cloudy weather the building appears much darker. --ELEKHH^T 12:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the building looks off-colour (it's already warm coloured so it's much harder to judge), it's the rest of the scene that is warm tinted. Look at any of the whites in the scene, they're all skewed towards the red. I'm loathe to upload over the top of it as it's already featured elsewhere, but I think a colour correction would help. I don't know whether uploading an edit is the answer either though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whites appear white on my screen but you're more than welcome to upload and nominate a corrected version under an Alt name. --ELEKHH^T 13:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I used the white of the VW logo on the side of the building as the guide for the WB correction as some of the other whites may have been a bit creamy or off-white to begin with. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I can see the difference now. --ELEKHH^T 23:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - There is scaffolding visible on the façade between the towers from a possible ongoing restoration work. Sanyambahga (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scaffolding is normal, hardly distracting on a factory. In this case it obscures 0.1% or so of the image. I don't see how that's an argument enough to oppose....--ELEKHH^T 12:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This image and the article don't really mesh. The article is about Wolfsburg. The article makes it note that the VW factory is the most notable part of the city. But the VW factory isn't the city. At the same time, the image shows only the factory's power station, not the factory. It's also a wide photograph of a square subject, therefore I have to also mention that I think the crop on the right is poor. The image should be on an article about the VW plant... or it should show the city. Not just a part of the factory which is a part of the city. Does this make sense? I also find it a touch contrasty, but that's a personal thing (I find a lot of FPs to be too contrasty). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Images of local landmarks, particularly those discussed in depth in a city/village article, still have EV. Compare the Church of St John the Baptise at Harescombe. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• At first, I was going to argue that Harescombe has a section devoted to the church, whereas Wolfsburg merely mentions the VW factory almost in passing a couple of times, but then I looked at the article more closely and it's obvious "Volkswagen" plays a major role in the city—something I should've checked first instead of skimming the topmost part of the article. So I'll change my vote to Support Edit 1. Thanks for bringing to my attention. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Edit 1 --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R. V. C. Bodley

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2013 at 17:07:36 (UTC)

Reason

Has lots of pixels and the man is handsome. If you read the Flickr page, there is a very interesting effort by the IWM to release photos and get the public to research the histories of some of the men from WWI. This guy is not just some person in people's families, but a fellow that we have a Wiki article on. And his one book that I have read (Wind in the Sahara) is very cool: imagine Richard Halliburton crossed with T. E. Lawrence.

Articles in which this image appears

R. V. C. Bodley

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military

Creator

unknown, placed on flickr by IWM, uploaded to Wiki by TCO.

• Support as nominator --TCO (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support handsomeness :) Could be cleaned up, but this is a nice find as-is. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was figuring on suckering one of you bitchez (tm Russavia), err...I mean fine upstanding graphic artists, to do the image improvement for me.  ;) TCO (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nev1 (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to Oppose on the grounds that is is not the best WP has to offer, as it could be greatly improved with some restoration done to it. I agree it is a great image though, and would really like to see it become featured. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt 1. Looks good Adam, thanks! --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt 1 uploaded. Support alt. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adam, he looks even prettier now.TCO (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:R. V. C. Bodley restoration.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Equestrian Portrait of Charles V, by Titian

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2013 at 17:19:58 (UTC)

Reason

One of best executed portraits in all of history, painted by the great Titian in 1548, of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, King of Spain; perfect color balance, very high resolution (it is available in a set of scanned tiles), very high encyclopedic value, without doubt this should be a featured picture.

Articles in which this image appears

Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, Equestrian Portrait of Charles V, Titian, Battle of Mühlberg, Habsburg Spain, List of works by Titian, Pedro Muñoz, Schmalkaldic War

FP category for this image

People-Royalty

Creator

Titian

• Support as nominator --Indefatigable2 (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes by Carlos, I think you've got it. A little dark (common for Google's scans) but look at the resolution! The cracks are all visible. To repeat an old joke, I think I see some bacteria! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes = Support, btw. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not my favorite portrait of the man, and I agree, it's dark, but it seems the man liked his dark portraits (and dark armor). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I reviewed this at 3,000px × 3,560px (a hundredth of the full size, but well over our requirements) due to computer issues: That is a processor-killer of an image. It looks great, so I feel comfortable supporting. . Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buland Darwaza

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2013 at 09:59:58 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Buland Darwaza, Fatehpur Sikri, Architecture of Uttar Pradesh, Tourism in Uttar Pradesh, List of World Heritage Sites in India

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Sfu

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The colour balance seems a bit too warm. Sanyambahga (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second that. It is very noticeable. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added an alt. Tomer T (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Looks good to me, though not quite sharp. — BNK(talk) 13:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not keen on the composition. It's unfortunate that the foreground chops off the bottom of the building so awkwardly. 86.146.104.35 (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stamens of a Hippeastrum flower

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2013 at 10:34:49 (UTC)

Reason

Has high EV, visually appealing, and every other criteria. Only the shorter length, is below 1500 meters, however, given the quality and uniqueness of the photo, I feel we can ignore it.

Articles in which this image appears

Stamen

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others

Creator

Aka

• Support as nominator --extra999 (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to low resolution and blown highlights in the red and green channels. This is an extremely common subject that can easily be re-photographed, I may even already have a similar image which does not have these issues... - Zephyris _Talk 11:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This isn't good enough. For such a very common and important subject, the photograph should be perfect in nearly every way. Indefatigable2 (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It isn't that strong technically and is small. The image forms a nice enough abstract but the EV is lowered because if you weren't familiar with stamen or read the caption, you wouldn't know what it was. We have loads of flower pictures. Colin°^Talk 19:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Purchase

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2013 at 12:22:33 (UTC)

Reason

Highly significant document, high resolution, quality scan, well-used

Articles in which this image appears

Alaska Purchase, History of Alaska, Russian America, 1867

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

Signed by Edouard de Stoeckl and William H. Seward (if I'm not mistaken), scan by US Government

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The Strongest Support --g. balaxaZe ^{ႫႨႼႤႰႠ} 12:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice scan of an important document in U.S. history. Indefatigable2 (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• question Why is it trapezoid?Geni (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Nice. Sort of had the same thought as Geni, but I'm not sure what the circumstances are. Unrelated to my vote, wouldn't mind if redlinks in description would be corrected (not exactly sure they're needed either). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel the 'trapezoid' impression may be due to some natural curling of the document. Indefatigable2 (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was my impression as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW: Links removed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Trapezoidal is generally due to either A. uneven shrinkage as paper dries out or B. not lying flat, since noone will press a one-of-a-kind ancient document down just to make it flatter. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is the back side of the document available? Brandmeister^talk 10:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in the sources I've seen (I went to the Archive's website [what a mess] and didn't find anything either) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good scan of historical document. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Alaska Purchase (hi-res).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kei Nishikori 1, Wimbledon 2013 - Diliff.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2013 at 15:15:36 (UTC)

Reason

It's a quality action photo of Japanese tennis player Kei Nishikori at Wimbledon. All important details of the player are in focus. Also, please, any issues or complaints relating to Kei Nishikori's teeth should be directed to his dentist! ;-)

Articles in which this image appears

Kei Nishikori

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on condition you update his retro hairstyle. But seriously, fine photograph. I would've preferred the racket to be separate from his body, but I'm not going to complain. I only got to watch Bobby Reynolds vs. No Joke Djokovich over the weekend. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think that's a fantastic photo, and I'm pleased to see that you uploaded a lot more of them to Commons. I don't suppose you have a zoom lens and a burning desire to watch cricket? Our articles on cricketers would really benefit from some action shots like this. Nev1 (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And we don't have any featured pictures of cricketers. We just have one old diagram. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm happy to do more sports photography, but cricket is another game entirely. The fields are often very large and all the action happens in the middle, a long way from the boundaries. The lens I used at Wimbledon is a 70-300mm lens - the perfect range for the intimate outside courts, but the sort of lens you need for cricket is something like this. Very large (almost 50cm long), very heavy (4kg) and very expensive (£10,000 / $15,000)! Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went to a test match between India and England with my gear but was stopped at the security check and told to leave the stadium or leave my camera :( --Muhammad(talk) 09:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Every sporting venue and/or organisational group seems to have different rules on what you can bring. I looked up what Cricket Australia's rules are and apparently anything longer than 200mm is not allowed. Wimbledon's is pretty camera-friendly, I think it's anything that you can fit into a bag (but the bag limits were more strict than an airline's carry on policy)... It's a shame that events feel so threatened by amateur photographers. I've often wondered what the reasoning behind it is... They obviously let news organisations' photographers in with whatever gear they want, but I assume there is some arrangement where they pay for 'press access'. What that arrangement is or how much it costs, I'm not sure. I looked at some of the professional photography from Wimbledon and I don't think my photos were significantly worse than the pros. They had a slightly more suitable lenses (300-400mm f/2.8) though which help to get closer and separate the background, and a camera with faster shooting speeds, but the results weren't much different. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support It is always great to have photos of players in action.– BNK(talk) 01:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Laitche (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, excellent action shot, used appropriately in the article. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Kei Nishikori 1, Wimbledon 2013 - Diliff.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Green

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2013 at 19:07:35 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution portrait photograph of English model Katie Green.

Articles in which this image appears

Katie Green +1 other

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others (or /Entertainment?)

Creator

NGUYEN DINH Quoc-Huy, photography; Keraunoscopia, derivative

• Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I thought this might be an overly flattering image. It wasn't, despite being a bit dated. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. To really illustrate the caption would be good to have a picture that shows her figure. Also, if that is her noteworthy feature...TCO (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She's also notable for her height. Should I add a scale to the image? :) I'd see your point if it were illustrating an article on large-size models, but my experience is that full-length portraits aren't usual for lead images. This is what she looks like; the article expounds on how others wish her to appear. There is another image on the article, a little lower, that shows more of her body, but it's still difficult to really see that she's "larger" without her standing next to a size zero model, imo. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's poorly captioned (which technically is a criteria...go look). Better to just say "Kate Green". And yes, if the caption mentioned how tall she was and showed a head shot, it would also be poor information design. It's not rocket science. Basic concept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 13:11, 2 July 2013‎

Ah, thanks, I'm still learning here. I saw on the Gaddafi nom that the caption should be more neutral for the main page so then I started wondering if captions here are used on the main page. I didn't realize that, I was just throwing out information. The template says "for context" but I didn't know how far that carried. Updated caption to be standard-fare stuff. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good. Brandmeister^talk 09:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I tweaked the caption, just a bit more, because I was honestly curious if it was a wedding pic. (Seems she is still on the market...purely editorial interest of course...)— Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 13:14, 3 July 2013
• Support. A model modelling- a nice dynamic portrait, as you'd expect from a professional photographer with a professional model! I agree with Keraunoscopia about a full-body shot- I think demanding we see the body of a model because we need to see how thin she is(n't) is patronising, even offensive. J Milburn (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Katie Green, Nikon Solutions Expo, 2008 (crop).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tilework on the Dome of the Rock

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2013 at 20:19:22 (UTC)

Reason

High Resolution image, good colors, several applications

Articles in which this image appears

Ceramic, Dome of the Rock, Tile, Turquoise

FP category for this image

Artwork-Others

Creator

Godot13

• Support as nominator --Indefatigable2 (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Godot13 does good work. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Sanyambahga (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support M7S6M (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Palestine-2013-Jerusalem-Temple Mount-Dome of the Rock-Detail 01.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal Richelieu redux

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2013 at 00:30:59 (UTC)

Reason

The last nomination was withdrawn due to a scanning error being discovered. Luckily, the error was of a type that I know how to fix invisibly with no loss of data: the flaw is a repeated section, so, presuming the original crop is good, you can just delete the repeat and have a perfect image.

Some JPEG artefacting is noticeable at 400% zoom, but that's normal. It's a good scan overall.

Articles in which this image appears

Cardinal Richelieu, Cardinal (Catholicism), Crown-cardinal, Luxembourg Palace, Protestant Reformation, Philippe de Champaigne, Académie française, Collection of the National Gallery, London, Portal:Biography/Selected anniversaries/September 9

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Religious figures

Creator

Philippe de Champaigne

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Again As the previous nominator, I renew my support for this very illustrative, very handsome painting, in this (now) excellent scan. Good show, Adam Cuerden. Indefatigable2 (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad I could help! Sometimes, you just need the knowledge of how to fix it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks gorgeous (and fine) to me. One of my favorite paintings of this man is Richelieu au Siège de La Rochelle (Siege of La Rochelle) but nothing that would hold up to FP standards, I don't think (can't see his face). I only know the man through Dumas, but he scares me anyway. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was mentioned in the previous nomination that he has a pinhead/voluminous robes. I could be wrong but I believe he would have been standing on a stool or ottoman or something to enhance his height and therefore intimidation factor, am I right? The portrait does its job well. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it seems, alas; you can see His Eminence's shoe peeping out from under his robes... Indefatigable2 (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wild, it's like an optical illusion. I can picture him as a tiny man on a stool or a normal sized man; all thanks to the robes. I couldn't find any height information in the article. That's a dark(ly positioned) shoe, I never saw it :) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dumas' treatment of Richelieu does not really fall in line with the real man (in several ways). He is portrayed as extremely powerful in fiction, whereas in real life (where he was only highly powerful), he indeed depended on the king for his position, as this: Day of the Dupes, may illustrate. I admittedly know relatively little of the Cardinal myself, but Richelieu could be quite ruthless, and was, as a matter of practice. To be referred to as the "father of the modern nation-state, modern centralised power [and] the modern secret service," as Canadian historian and philosopher John Ralston Saul did, he had to be quite ruthless... Indefatigable2 (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]