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

Mount Merapi

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2014 at 04:15:33 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, decent quality, useful image (lead in the article)

Articles in which this image appears

Mount Merapi

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Chris Woodrich

• Support as nominator –  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support . An exotic landscape that shows an interesting feature. ^{and more landscape nominations would be nice...} Hafspajen (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - definitely valuable and quite a pretty scene, though I can't help but feel it's not quite as sharp and detailed as it could be. A couple minor distractions in the foreground include a metal stake and some kind of utility line. However, it's high-quality illustration of the volcano itself, and given the smoke it may even have some value as an illustration of volcanic eruptions in general. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I guess Crisco can just cropp that off, if it is a problem. Probably it would benefit the composition too. The mountain will be more proeminent. Hafspajen (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, I can crop if there is consensus for it. To get rid of the power line would be... perhaps 300 pixels. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You have 5,080 × 3,387 pixels to crop from. Would't mind an ALT. Hafspajen (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer the original as well. The powerline isn't a huge issue. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, my guesstimate was off, but here's the alt. Don't quite like it myself. File:Mount Merapi in 2014 (edit).jpg. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. High quality picture, useful as an illustration of volcanic eruptions. --Carioca (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Good EV--Godot13 (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer original to cropped version...--Godot13 (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Jee 15:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent encyclopedic value, reasonable clarity and good composition. I do however think the wire at the bottom can be cropped out. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 06:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Yes, if one put that crop exactly above the line, because the rest is needed. File:Mount Merapi in 2014 (edit).jpg is too tight. We need the green leaves in the foreground as a contrast, as a frame. Hafspajen (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the proposed crop is too tight. The bushes at the bottom add to the composion. A crop that just barely removes the wire should look better. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree completely. Hafspajen (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mount Merapi in 2014.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna of the rocks

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2014 at 11:10:09 (UTC)

Reason

Iconic picture of Leonardo da Vinci. Leonardo was an Italian Renaissance painter, sculptor, architect, musician, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, cartographer, botanist, and writer and who knows what more. He is considered to be one of the greatest painters of all time.

Articles in which this image appears

Virgin of the Rocks, Leonardo da Vinci and more

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Leonardo da Vinci

• Support as nominator – Hafspajen (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The circle crop at the top was very poorly done. Very jagged. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Yes, I had my doubts - but it seems like big mistake of us not to have a decent file on Wikipedia of this masterpiece. Hafspajen (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If I had a pre-crop version I could probably do something, but we'd just lose information if I tried to use this as my source file. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be nice. It is really a shame not to have this one. Hafspajen (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Crisco 1492 and Hafspajen: Is this any better? Failing that, this? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't open the Russian site, and the second has painfully obvious cracks in the painting, such that I doubt it would last in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the Russian site's version is on Commons. Looks like it's based on a photograph and not a scan (I think I see noise here) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Crisco sees noises that's not good. (^{And the Russian on commons has the same problems on top, I guess it might be difficult to fix a circle like that).} Hafspajen (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It's the same gallerix.ru image as this Commons valued image which reached its status on the basis of a single vote from the nominator. The image in turn seems to be a processed version of of this point-and-shoot Canon PowerShot photo. On Commons you are supposed to indicate digital restorations, but I can't see any indication offered. I'm pretty sure what's been done here far exceeds WP:FP?#8. I rate the whole things as roughly on a par of those cam versions of the latest blockbuster films you see uploaded to Usenet the day after their release, and I can't support it. Too iconic for me I'm afraid, though I agree it's not displeasing: its authenticity another matter. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a matter of personal taste, in this case. But things has to be seen in context in art history. Considering how people were drawing and painting before Leonardo, one has to be amazed how outstanding this man was. Nowadays one can take things for granted, because many painters learned the techniques and even made them exagerated, like in Manierism. But Leonardo Da Vinci can never be too iconic, that is just not possible. Leonardo da Vinci is one of the few people one can without any problem say that that man was a genius, because he was. As we are talking about this, I do admit that there are certain paintings that are blown up by the market, and don't have the value in the same way, like - some of the van Gogh or Picasso pictures, for example, yes. (And van Gogh has wonderfull, light blue and pink pictures, that nobody cares for ... because are not considered regular van Gogh's-style). But not Leonardo... And we should really try to get a decent file on Wikipedia of this masterpiece. Hafspajen (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Van Gogh blown up ... what heresy! But quite true of course. I had a look for images of the Louvre version of the Madonna of the Rocks and couldn't find any good ones. The Louvre doesn't allow flash photography, so any photograph would have to be taken in natural light. There are some Flickr versions, but they aren't very good and "all rights reserved" in any case. You can try Featuring the Coatzee bequest of the National Gallery version as restored a few minutes ago by yours truly :). Happy to support that. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles I

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2014 at 14:04:42 (UTC)

Reason

Oil painting of Charles I of England by Flemish artist Sir Anthony Van Dyck, showing the King from three viewpoints, profile, front and semi-profile. The painting is currently part of the Royal Collection of the British Royal Family.

Articles in which this image appears

Charles I in Three Positions, Charles I of England, History of England

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty and nobility

Creator

Sir Anthony Van Dyck

• Support as nominator – Hafspajen (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I've been eyeing this painting since 2011 as a possible FP. Glad Google's finally scanned it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - fascinating picture. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sir Anthony Van Dyck - Charles I (1600-49) - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Placed it in Artwork/Paintings, as there is an article about the artistic work. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chex Mix

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2014 at 14:25:29 (UTC)

Reason

First thing I thought when I saw this: I'm hungry. Effective, well taken, well composed... and, surprisingly, with a Canon PowerShot! Wish mine could have done something like this.

Articles in which this image appears

Chex Mix +3

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink

Creator

Evan Amos

• Support as nominator –  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• My first thought on viewing this image was "I wish this had been taken with a D800". It's acceptable as it stands, but I've always been of the opinion that a photo of a readily available subject should be nothing short of memorizing for its resolution and detail. Waiting for some more thoughts before I commit to a vote. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I just don't like the flat presentation of this pile of interesting shaped items. This snack mix could be far better presented in the way it is on the non-free image File:Chex-Mix-Trad-Bag-Small.jpg or even the free image of the same subject File:Chex Mix.jpg. Peripitus (Talk) 09:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd consider something like what's on the bag to have considerably less EV than what we've got here, as it wastes space. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles II of England

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2014 at 00:44:55 (UTC)

Reason

King of England painted by John Michael Wright (1617 – 1694)

Articles in which this image appears

Charles II of England, French migration to the United Kingdom, List of Canadian monarchs, and other Wikis

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty and nobility

Creator

John Michael Wright

• Support as nominator – Hafspajen (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Amandajm (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:King Charles II by John Michael Wright or studio.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maratus volans

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2014 at 15:01:42 (UTC)

Reason

Image is freely licensed, highly technically accurate, has a complete file description in English, and is the only image of a male peacock spider in its famous courtship pose available anywhere on Wikipedia or Commons that is not a reduced resolution JPEG photograph; as an SVG which has also been cleaned of all raster components, this image is unlimited by resolution.

Articles in which this image appears

Maratus

FP category for this image

WP:Featured pictures/Animals/Arachnids

Creator

KDS444

• Support as nominator – KDS4444^Talk 15:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - totally brilliant image! I'm right in saying it started as a very fine drawing and then converted to an SVG file? Outstanding! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - image is not used on Maratus volans - presumably it should replace the info box image there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It looks good in the thumbnail but why do we have a rendering of it rather than a picture of the actual thing? --Muhammad(talk) 18:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral It's beautiful, but per Muhammad. The fact it's resolution independent doesn't makes this a bigger image in the sense that the increased resolution brings actual data. I see a lot of use for SVG but not this (and I can see author makes a lot of other beautiful useful diagrams). And not to mention there's always rendering issues with SVG (slow in that case, never render the same on different combinations of hardware/software when complex shapes are drawn ...). - Blieusong (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose, per - Muhammad. Can't we replace it with a photo? And there are not enough pixels either on the image... Hafspajen (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose, Agree with Muhammad. It is possible, so we should have a photo of this instead. --Chrismiceli (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Where photographs are available of animals, we should generally promote those. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the nominator substituted their SVG file for a recently obtained photograph by the current world expert back in February, so this evidently fails FP?#5. I suggest we just turn a blind eye to that. How so, incidentally your remark that a photograph is preferable to a drawing? Can you point to policy, please so that I can move to change it? Quite the opposite should be the case of course, though each case should naturally be determined on its merits in case of conflict. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Diagrams and drawings are only used when something can't be illustrated otherwise. The reality is so complex that a diagram or drawing can never replace the real thing. One notable exception is a big artist making a drawing or painting on something - THAT has an artistic value, because he/she adds that something that is mostly rather hard to describe. But that something is the thing that makes a big artist differ from a street artist. And this is one of the kind of things one studies when studying art history, aesthetics and so on. It is not a simple policy, but more than that. Hundreds and thousands of books were written on this king of topics, and more will be written. Hafspajen (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmhh.. well thanks for that. As example my case here's the photo illustrating Wild turkey and this is the Audubon print (Commons seems to have a complete collection of Birds of America from the University of Pittsburgh, part of the Zoomify bequest :) ; I trust one example at least of the bounty has made it to "Featured"). There's archaeological illustration as well one could give as example, though I don't doubt photography is making inroads there. I would still be curious to see policy. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A historical collection, made 1825 - and arround - before the camera was used - and before we could take colour pictures. That justifies its encyclopedic value. Voting on this page is about aesthetic judgment, not policy. Polic is a simple thing. Policy says: picture should be used in article, they have to be used in at least two-three articles - preferably more, should be used at least for a week, it has to be in the article for at least 7 days before it can be nominated. The pixels has to be more than 1500, at least 1500px, but that is a minimum, the more the better - but preferably more, should have EV, - and - they have to be sharp, and of good quality. The rest is aesthetic judgment, and that one can't summarize that in a few words. This discussion is now long enough, if more questions, start a new thread at talk page. Hafspajen (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to WP:FP? (and incidentally the criteria is that the image should appear in at least one article, not at least two-three as you aver)) but to Crisco's assertion that photos are preferred over drawings. Wikipedia doesn't have space constraints, so if you would like to squeeze in a brief pointer I should appreciate it, you seems to be knowledgeable. Regarding this image I was suggesting that in this case we overlook FP?#5. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page, please. Hafspajen (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anywhere you like, at a time and place of your choosing. I opt for urostomy pouches at 10 paces, no seconds. You should know my squirt is infallibly fatal. You might like to reconsider and withdraw. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ohlalalala. Hafspajen (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, there is no current policy, but Hafs has already explained the rationale behind this: what we have here is an SVG depiction (an exceptionally well done SVG, I'll admit) of an animal that would be better and more accurately represented through photography. Unlike KDS' work with the ringworms, which are diagrams (and thus work better represented through illustrations), this is meant to show a whole animal - and just that. That the existing photograph is not as good as we'd like is not a reason to promote an illustration.

Yes, we could theoretically pass an Audubon plate (or even the whole set if somebody really wanted to clean them up), but I doubt they would pass as accurate illustrations of the animals, but rather based on their EV in depicting how Audubon depicted the animals, in an article on the plates (yes, last I checked there is one on just the plates) or book. If we could get a good scan of Dürer's Rhinoceros, that would probably pass too - as a depiction of Dürer's Rhinoceros. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pass on "better and more accurately represented" :). Thank you for confirming there is no policy. It would be frankly surprising if there was one such, given the long tradition of botanical illustration to name but just one area. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Incidentally Dürer's Rhinoceros is illustrated in its featured article by an 8.6 Mb image from Christies last year (I do quite a few of these myself as it happens). I'll nominate it directly. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've no problem in featuring an illustration. But it must be verified by the experts first. So made a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spiders. Jee 13:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Good idea. Thanks for that. I'd really like to see the effort rewarded here, but I can see there are issues to address. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - beautiful illustration, but there are some anatomical details that need to be fixed if this is to be considered FP material:
  • Most of the legs have the wrong number of segments. In particular, the raised 3rd legs do not seem to have patellas.
  • It looks like the spider is standing on its claws rather than its foot pads. See [2] for spider foot diagrams and photos.
  • The black "brushes" on the 3rd metatarsi should be more prominent and bushy.

Kaldari (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are the footpads visible on the photo? In your featured image (seriously just curious, it may be your species doesn't have them - but then you did say "spider" didn't you)? @KDS444: plainly we need to ping the nominator about this. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the foot pads are visible in both of those photos. They are the small black areas at the ends of each leg. You can see lots more foot pad photos in this paper. It looks like there may be small foot pads in KDS444's illustration, but it appears that the spider is standing on its claws rather its foot pads. Kaldari (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what I thought, not that I'm an expert by any means. Still it's wonderful someone like you taking an interest. Thank you so much. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kaldari for your opinion on the picture. I know by experience that when drawing or picturing something almost all people tend to simplify things. Who knows why... But it is the way it is. Hafspajen (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to simply withdraw my nomination at this point. I don't see a straightforward procedure for this as there is on Commons, so I am adding the request as just a statement. We can end the discussion now. Thank you all for your valuable opinions. KDS4444^Talk 11:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that nominator and creator are the same individual: KDS4444=KDS444.)

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Cathedral (Katedrála)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2014 at 01:21:25 (UTC)

Reason

High quality scan of a notable painting. Just don't open it in your browser.

Articles in which this image appears

The Cathedral (Katedrála) +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

František Kupka

• Support as nominator –  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there any way to upload a less mahoosive version as an alternative to list on the image description page? I'd like to see a bit more detail than the preview allows, but like you said... not a good idea at the moment. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) download via right clicking or 2) open one of the tiles used (all of them are hosted locally). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a little concerned that it was only saved at quality 60. With chunked uploads, surely we can do better than that? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Chunked uploads is only available on Commons. This file is hosted locally because it is still in copyright in the nation of origin (but out of copyright in the US). AFAIK, the only way to get a file that is more than 100mb in size on the English Wikipedia is a server-side upload. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support, then. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I had to download the image to my computer to be able to open it. The detail is... well... ridiculous--Godot13 (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a bit to modern for my personal taste, but it might work. Hafspajen (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 11:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:František Kupka - Katedrála - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Bullock Workman

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2014 at 02:00:37 (UTC)

Reason

It's decent resolution, and for a print from the time - we often go with images from negatives - it's not bad. Fanny Bullock Workman was one of Adrianne Wadewitz's last articles, and, well, I want it to be as good as it would have been had she finished. It's not hard to see why she attracted Adrianne, someone who loved the 18th-century travel writings of Wollstonecraft, who had taken up rock climbing recently, and who was a feminist to her core.

Articles in which this image appears

Fanny Bullock Workman

FP category for this image

You could make a case for a lot of subcategories of "People", but, given she was a travel writer, I think Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers would be least surprising.

Creator

Maull & Fox, restoration by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - For a print this is pretty darned good, and not as noisy/blurry as those I've uploaded. Did you have to deal with any halftoning? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Crisco 1492: No, it was a carte de visite, but I cropped the mount as the LoC scan was in black and white, and paper always looks horrible in black and white. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, so I can't pester you for help with the halftoning in Dhalia's image (shame too; I'd love to have access to the negative). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Moving this to your talk page. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Good B&W of a female historical character who in the cultural context of her times was amazing. (Love the hat!) Sca (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High quality. High educational value. High encyclopedic value. — Cirt (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Maull & Fox - Fanny Bullock Workman.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blenduk Church

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2014 at 02:05:46 (UTC)

Reason

I hear people are getting bored of temples, and that many are unaware that Indonesia has notable churches, so I present to you a 90 megapixel image of Blenduk Church, in Semarang... the oldest church in Central Java. Sharp, good quality, and very encyclopedic. Note that this angle was deliberate, allowing me to include the name of the church (the text on the facade) as well as most of the dome. Moving back would have caused several trees to enter the frame and start blocking the dome (visible here), so I didn't do that

Articles in which this image appears

Blenduk Church, List of church buildings in Indonesia, Semarang

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Chris Woodrich

• Support as nominator –  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - nice morning light, but it's rather bland I think without a genuine highlight. Hell of a kit you must have there, but (speaking of temples and researching) it's nice to see you can still make the grade (on the Indonesian wiki at least) with entry-level gear - Borobudur-Nothwest-view. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: the Borobudur image: Gunkarta does some good photography, but I've been replacing his images with better ones where possible (Gunkarta, Me). The Indonesian Wikipedia's standards are somewhat lax; they accepted this on the main page (I've got a better version coming up, once I stitch it). Although I know what you mean, and agree that would make this even better, the "genuine highlights" are in the wrong spot this time of year; the church faces south, and the sunrise is to the north-east. It would be better around October, but that's usually when the rainy season starts (and thus very touch and go for travel by motorcycle). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your Kalasan image was excellent and I wouldn't have rated the Semarang image as "featured" you mention either, though of course it's nevertheless very welcome. Just griping really because I only have entry-level gear myself and don't think there's much chance of my getting a featured pic in. There are truly wonderful images being uploaded to Wikipedia, for example the Pont du Gard below. Keep up the good work! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support An interesting, unusual buildning with encyclopedic value. (And I am waiting for the interior pictures... So they can be a set. ) Wish though that they did't put the garbage cans out like that. Hafspajen (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One problem with the interior picture: it has some artefacts from where I applied filters to remove any ghosting (see the upper windows). I'll see if I can rework that image so that those are not so apparent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV, very nice image given positioning difficulties.--Godot13 (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jee 14:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice composition and detail. Out of interest, what is the dome cladding material? I guess it must be painted sheet metal but it looks so wavy that it appears to be some kind of canvas or plastic! Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I've seen any information on that so far. I suspect you are correct, but I'll keep my eye open for something a little more concrete — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silly me, article has a reference saying copper. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Exterior of Blenduk Church, Semarang, 2014-06-18.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Young Girl Reading

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2014 at 09:27:16 (UTC)

Reason

Jean-Honoré Fragonard was a French painter, whose late Rococo manner was distinguished by remarkable facility, exuberance and hedonism. His paintings were meant to evoke emotion and passion instead of the calm rationality that had been prized during the Renaissance. He used more lighthearted, playful and witty themes but also tension, exuberance, and intricate designs in his paintings - an intimate scale, rather than the imposing Baroque presenting it. Among his most popular works are genre paintings conveying an atmosphere of intimacy.

Articles in which this image appears

A Young Girl Reading, Jean-Honoré Fragonard and more.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Jean-Honoré Fragonard

• Support as nominator – Hafspajen (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a major influence on Mary Cassatt, whose 1879 Woman Reading and On the Balcony both evidently influenced by Fragonard. But what is most interesting about Cassat's paintings is their modernity, not only in her treatment, but (as Griselda Pollock and Judith Barter point out) in the subject, because whereas Fragonard depicts his subject reading a novel, Cassat has hers reading a newspaper. And then of course there's Edouard Manet's celebrated 1879 Reading where not only do we have a woman reading a newspaper, but reading it in a café and with a glass of beer at hand to boot! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Does the original have such prominent blue streaks on the face? I'm already ready to support, but I do find those odd. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, well spotted and a good point. It's the museum's image, so that should be safe. But in any case these kind of blue and pink highlights are the Rococo style, copied by Mary Cassatt. Incidentally, I see the NGA zoom facility offers considerably more resolution than what Commons offers. I'll see if I can get that and upload it as a new version. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  There are tools available to stitch those tiles together (as I did for File:Raden Saleh.jpg, from the Rijksmuseum), but the downloading takes forever! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  NGA download allows up to 3,000 pixels long edge, which is what Commons provides. Don't know any scripts that will stitch NGA tiles. That Raden Saleh image is beautiful. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check. Hafspajen (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that it is correct, but I am not 100 % sure HOW proeminent they are. But the blue lights (or shadows) are there on almost all reproductions. This tells us citation: He painted these very quickly—in an hour, according to friends—using bold, energetic strokes. ... Fragonard explored the point at which a simple trace of paint becomes a recognizable form, dissolving academic distinctions between a sketch and finished painting. Interesting, using blue complementary colours as shadows like this. This will generally come much later - Monet was a great master of this. But it is not a general Rococo style, no, it is something that Fragonard uses - my guess would be - might have learned from Rubens (1577–1640), who was among the first to use this kind of fast, flowing brush technique, like here-> File:Peter Paul Rubens and workshop 001 colour version 01.jpg and Fragonard (1732-1806) was born around hundred years after Rubens died. Hafspajen (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Okay Hafs and Coat, thanks for the explanation. This looks quite good, I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This painting is actually mentioned as an example of ultra-high resolution at this NGA page here. Someone nerdier than me might be able to stitch the tiles on the basis of the info there? Coat of Many Colours (talk)

It actually looks the same, the surface - it looks like in this picture. Hafspajen (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but it would still be nice to have it at the mark. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: The cool grey on the face is consistently used in the shadows in other parts of the painting. Amandajm (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amandajm, you remember any other painter from art history from this timeperiod, using shadows and brushwork like this? Hafspajen (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Beautiful, beautiful painting! CorinneSD (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very sharp and a quality reproduction. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 11:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yann (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Fragonard, The Reader.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wakatobi flowerpecker

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2014 at 16:20:09 (UTC)

Reason

This is my first FP nomination, so hopefully I get this right... I am nominating this picture for FP status as I feel it has exceptionally high EV and also is of good technical quality. The picture clearly shows the difference between two closely related bird species (who historically were thought of as subspecies) in a way that text alone can't.

Articles in which this image appears

Wakatobi flowerpecker, Grey-sided flowerpecker

FP category for this image

birds

Creator

Sean Kelly, David Kelly, Natalie Cooper, Bahrun Andi, Kangkuso Analuddin, Nicola Marples

• Support as nominator – ThaddeusB (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - By all rights this should be a JPG. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, for use in articles, aye. Having it as PNG is helpful if more editing turned out to be needed. Wikipedia cripples the display of the PNG format because they want to save it for things that should be SVG. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that (if I recall correctly, we discussed it last year in Hong Kong). However, considering we're at FPC, and the image being nominated is a PNG (which displays substandardly), I think in the context my comment should be understood as "For the purposes of FPC, the photograph being used/nominated should be a JPG". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had no idea, so thanks for pointing this out. I'll upload a second copy of the image this evening as JPG - I assume it should be lossless? --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • JPEG can't be completely lossless, but as lossless as possible. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • JPEG uploaded & nomination link changed accordingly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although splitting this into individual images should also be doable (if that is thought to be more desirable). Personally I'm fine with this as it is. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Support is for alt too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't like this kind of multiple pictures. Visually, it is basically the same type of image four times. And if splitting this into individual images I could imagine supporting some of them, then but not all. Hafspajen (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering what the images are doing (comparing the two sexes of two species) we can't exactly cut back on the number of images and still have the same encyclopedic value. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I got that too. Two males and two females. But the background is different, and the pictures are way too different. If I was the one using them, I would at least put the male and the female beside each other not below. Also, I would separate them, 2+2. Not 4 photos in the same picture but 2. And then 2 more. Too many different backgrounds and to many different fingers on top of each other. It is too much. Hafspajen (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – If you look at the full size image, you can clearly see that the four photos do not have even sizes and are not exactly aligned, which could easily be fixed. – Editør (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @Editør: It looks like the top row is +/- 1510px while the bottom is +/- 1550, so you are correct they are a bit different. The column widths are also very slightly different ~1580px vs. ~1590px. I assume this is what you are referring to as opposed to the image scale. (The species are slightly different sized and of course there is some sexual dimorphism, so I am very hesitant to change the scale unless you have a suggestion as to how to ensure the scale is correct - visually it looks correct to me.) As to alignment, do you suggest aligning the bottom of the birds? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I suggest that the square images are cropped to the same size and then positioned with even spaces between them. – Editør (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The source link is directing me to an image; not to an image source page where I can see license and author info. I see CC BY-2.5 and CC BY-4.0 on the file page in Commons; but plos says all of their works are licensed with CC BY-3.0 Jee 07:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I found [3] and it is CC BY-4.0. So the template seems confusing. (source corrected). Jee 07:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I modified the template to allow version to be passed. The file now correctly shows only 4.0. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Alt1 uploaded with images all the same size & better aligned. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. I also changed the article link to the realigned version, as I believe it is superior to the original, albeit only slightly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt1. - Peripitus (Talk) 09:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any. Jee 15:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Alt 1 and Original.- It is a good picture, but not entirely up to a Featured picture quality. Hafspajen (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hafspajen: For my own benefit (to better learn FP standards), can you clarify if the objection is solely based on composition (variant backgrounds, preference to separate pics, etc.), or if it is also on technical quality (which is excellent I think, but could be mistaken)? --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is still the way it is assembled, that makes the problem - visually, I mean. The visual balance. The sky for example is in the middle of the picture. The dark birds are on the top, it makes it top heavy. If you could at least put the male and female Grey-sided flowerpeckers (Dicaeum celebicum) beside each other, on top row, and Dicaeum kuehni, beside, under, starting with the males. Hafspajen (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt2 added per request from Hafspajen. What is the procedure for a late edit like this? Should be discussion me extended or something? --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Well it would be good if you would notify the other participants from the addition of Alt 2 so that they can reconsider their !vote. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ALT2 Hafspajen (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Adam Cuerden, Crisco 1492, Editør, Jkadavoor, and Peripitus: - Preference for Alt1 or Alt2? --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still prefer ALT1 - Peripitus (Talk) 23:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1I was opposing ALT1 but support ALT 2. Hafspajen (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2 Preference for ALT1, but support any which get this to pass. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3 I'm fine with either. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4 Just in case its not clear, either alt is fine by me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5 Support any. Jee 02:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editør has declined to comment further, so I guess this should be closed one way or another based on the existing comments. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Counting votes for Alt 2 or any. 5. Unless Peripitus opposes ALT 2 and Prefers Alt 1... Because then it is checkmate. Hafspajen (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1 would be 6 support, 1 oppose --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then it is checkmate. Let the wise promote. Hafspajen (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Peripitus:..open the Gordian buddy..--The herald 15:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone specify what "further input" is needed? Alt1 has 6 support, 1 oppose; Alt2 has 5 support, 0 oppose. One support for both preferred alt1; others who supported both had no preference. It seems to be that either alt has enough support to promote - is that the problem? (I.E. no clear decision on which is preferred, but both have enough support.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I'm not sure which one should be promoted. It would be nice if @Crisco 1492:, @Adam Cuerden:, @Jkadavoor: and you would decide which one you like the most and only support that. Currently I tend to close this as "No consensus which one should be promoted.". Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer Alt 2, ideally. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer ALT2 to make the closing easier. :) Jee 05:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT2 is fine - knot cut ? - Peripitus (Talk) 09:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dicaeum celebicum compared to Dicaeum kuehni (vertical).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a rough consensus that Alt2 should be promoted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dürer's Rhinoceros

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2014 at 13:05:43 (UTC)

Reason

Iconic image illustrating a Featured Article

Articles in which this image appears

Dürer's Rhinoceros

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others

Creator

Albrecht Dürer, uploaded by Scewing

• Support as nominator – Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support - This is a very nice scan, and I can accept the (horrid! monstrous! scandalous!) cutting of the border which happened sometime in this copy's past (clearly wasn't the uploader). However, owing to technical limitations (JPGs are sharpened when thumbnailed, PNGs aren't) I think that a JPG version of this file should be used and promoted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, best category is probably Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others, as this has its EV from its use in an article on an artwork. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll go back to the original Christie's file and see what that does by way of cropping. I can upload a JPG, but is that allowed or should I be creating a new file? Perhaps you could let me know. Of course you're right about the category, and I changed that. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's not a digital crop. Take a look at the borders (at full size; the white edges are not visible at thumb); they aren't straight, as they would be with a digital crop. It's clear that the paper was cut by someone, at some point in time, but I doubt we'd ever find out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that's right. I've now downloaded a slightly higher resolution picture and saved it as a JPG. Let me know what to do with it. I think overwriting is safe? When you use these special scripts they give you a PNG file to begin with (and the original uploader only opted for the medium resolution vrsion for some reason). In fact I'll just go ahead and do it. Let me know if you want me to undo and do something else. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, I can't overwrite a different file type. I'll do a fresh upload and link here accordingly (and relink the FA file, which should be OK since it's a better file). But I can't do this right now, perhaps this evening, because I like to write up a fair Commons description and it takes a while. I'll let you know when it's up. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I'm uploading now (saved with the least compression of course). Just moving veryyyyyyyyyyy slowly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for that. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: pity about its toenails being cropped out and AD's monogram being poorly printed/damaged. I looked at the Christies original. I doubt if we'll get a better image than this one. Amandajm (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose: I think that promoting such a bad crop is poor precedent. And it's not like it's a particularly high-resolution scan beyond that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been cropped just inside the bottom border. None of the rhino itself has been lost. Compare British Museum image here. I do rather agree with you. It's a great pity it was cropped like that. I've added Christie's lot description to the Commons file describing the crop. The British Museum image unfortunately isn't available as an anonymous bequest image, not unless anyone here fancies fancies commissioning new photography, a snip at £60 (can't help sorry, planning on bringing home a Bacon tomorrow and may be a bit short for the month, prolly I'll have to sell Google or something).

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flying gurnard

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2014 at 13:11:09 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, good quality for the age... in almost ten years we haven't gotten anything better. Hafs showed this to me, and I was wowed.

Articles in which this image appears

Flying gurnard +4

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish

Creator

Beckmannjan

• Support as nominator –  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Interesting picture. Very impressive blended underwater lights & shadows. ^{And it ain’t anther bird, even if I liked the last one.} Hafspajen (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, certainly. Brandmeister^talk 21:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great colors and shadowing for an underwater shot.--Godot13 (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great colors, nice light and shadow, very clear. What is it? CorinneSD (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A type of fish with semi-transparent "wings". Never heard of it before Hafs brought this to my attention. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Lovely image. SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Minor technical flaws, but it's good for underwater photography and even better from 2006. I didn't know fish like this existed. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Corinne. Pteronura brasiliensis 18:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yann (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Flughahn.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States Notes ("Greenback") set

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2014 at 15:15:20 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, high EV (presented as a complete denominational set).
United States Greenbacks, so called because of the green ink used on the back of the notes, were authorized by Congress in three issues between 1862 and 1863. During that time, the wording of the payment obligation was altered creating additional varieties of the notes. The present set, $1 to $1,000, contains high grade examples of the somewhat more available lower-denomination notes as well as some extremely rare ($100 and $500) and unique ($50 and $1,000) varieties in the higher denominations.

Original – A nine-note complete denominational set of United States "Greenbacks", Series 1862–63.

Articles in which these images appear

Greenback (money) (all), one each in United States one-dollar bill, United States two-dollar bill, United States five-dollar bill, United States ten-dollar bill, United States twenty-dollar bill, United States fifty-dollar bill, United States one hundred-dollar bill, Large denominations of United States currency

FP category for this image

Currency

Creator

Both the American and Continental Banknote Companies under contract to the United States Department of the Treasury, as well as the U.S. Department of the Treasury itself.
From the National Numismatic Collection, NMAH, Smithsonian Institution.
Images by Godot13.

• Support as nominator – Godot13 (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Another great set. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great work. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - belated because I've only just noticed how fine they are. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jee 16:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yann (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:US-$1-LT-1862-Fr-16c.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:US-$2-LT-1862-Fr-41.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:US-$5-LT-1862-Fr-61a.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:US-$10-LT-1863-Fr-95b.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:US-$20-LT-1863-Fr-126b.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:US-$50-LT-1862-Fr-148a.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:US-$100-LT-1863-Fr-167.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:US-$500-LT-1863-Fr-183c.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:US-$1000-LT-1863-Fr-186e.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three Temples at Sam Poo Kong

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2014 at 17:07:15 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and resolution. We don't have much Chinese-style architecture featured.

Articles in which this image appears

Sam Poo Kong

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Chris Woodrich

• Support as nominator –  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Excellent image. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great addition to the article with high EV.--Godot13 (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – A very clear, striking photo. CorinneSD (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Interesting image. SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice image, although I note that at 100%, it's significantly lacking in detail on the peripheries, particularly on the left side. The stone tiles are almost completely smeared and there is some jaggedness in the building. I would understand it if this was a rectilinear projection but it appears to be cylindrical (no horizontal distortion at the edges). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is rectilinear, actually. I'll try and prepare an alt using a cylindrical projection, to see how it looks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Could you add geocoding please? Yann (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, inline. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Three Temples at Sam Poo Kong, 2014-06-18.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prothonotary Warbler (Audubon)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2014 at 18:53:16 (UTC)

Before processing

After processing

Reason

This image has both historical and encyclopedic interest, being an Audubon engraving. The resolution is excellent, extending to individual marks of the engraver.

Articles in which this image appears

The Birds of America, Prothonotary warbler

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others

Creator

Mturtle

• Support as nominator Withdrawing support per discussion below. – Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is already a featured image of the Prothonotary Warbler which is a photo Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Prothonotary Warbler dating from 2006. There is at least one featured image of an Audobon painting, namely the Ivory-billed woodpecker, which is indeed very fine, but at a file size of just 393 KB the resoltion is very limited. I have no idea how the foxing (yellowing) was fixed in these images, but the result is indeed wonderful. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The areas around the text have not been cleaned up like the rest of the image. Perhaps the text should just be cropped out as was done with File:Campephilus principalisAWP066AA2.jpg. Kaldari (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to get a better threshold mask. The problem is that the underbelly of the lower birds and the wings of the upper bird are in part painted in the same colour as the background, so that you're confronted with some quite delicate repainting. As for that background tone there's no prospect of recovering the original and I can't find a reference image on the web. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The foxing has been removed. What remains might well be an artefact of inking (I mean I don't know). You're examining it at a very high magnification to notice it. In any case what part of WP:FP? says every little bit should be clean? Note there is some license granted for historical images. I should be very sorry to see the text go over a little shadow. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not sure that every bit should or needs to be clean (in fact the background looks artificially clean, no texture of any kind) but the restoration of the image should be consistent. Some places have been cleaned, others remain original. There is at least one area in the design where the restorer has made a few hesitant strokes to clean, but then abandoned the area (directly underneath the upper bird's leg). It's a very nice image, but the restoration is not finished, in my opinion...--Godot13 (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the numerous image uploaded, I would say that the background was entirely "clean" (I mean many of these images are mark resolved, so one can clearly discern toning artefacts), and that's confirmed by facsimiles such as this. I can see what you mean by the hesitant strokes. As far as I know you can't deal with foxing (toning) in even very sophisticated image processing suites (perhaps Crisco can confirm?) You just have to get in there with a rubber (as Juliet remarked to Romeo) and WP:FP? does make a concession here: "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed". Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't get me wrong (as you are preaching to the choir regarding an understanding for historical or unique images). There are cases for no restoration, there are cases for light restoration, and there are sometimes cases for heavy restoration. This however, in my opinion only, is incomplete restoration. That doesn't take away from the value of the image, but it does make it much more difficult to become featured.--Godot13 (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not and there you go! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• The "restorer" has ignored the fact that the paper on which the image was printed was not white, and the paper on which the image was created would not have been stark white either. This shows a blatant disregard for the intentions of the artist who would have taken the colour of the paper on which the artwork was created into account.
• The subtle shading of blue and green has been diminished so that the areas that in the "unrestored" version are slightly iridescent, in the so-called "restored" version have lost their sheen.
• The loss of detail to the borders of the individual feathers of the wing are clearly apparent from these two details.

My recommendation is that the colour of the background is restored to the image, (and by "restored" I don't mean "removed") and that the worst spotting and damage is cleaned up, and possibly the background lightened a little in tone to counteract the effect of aging, but with the integrity of the work maintained. Amandajm (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I have to defer to your expertise about background colour (see also my further remarks below). I have no idea what the prints originally looked like and assumed the restorer knew what they were about. I did look at this virtual presentation of an edition and they simply looked foxed to me (the whole page). As I mention above there was an earlier image that made it to "Featured". That too has a white background (whereas the original has a mustard yellow background) and the issue wasn't raised at its discussion. Finally facsimiles such as this confirm a white background.

But that is all justification after the fact. I readily confess I just assumed the paper was white without thinking about it. Whoops. But the whole set tinted mustard yellow? It does sound slightly implausible to me. On the other hand this Christies set does indeed have tinted backgrounds.

Obviously if the community can't reconcile itself this time round to a white background, then we can't feature it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to rerestore from the original. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I initiated all this I suppose I ought to offer, but the fact is I haven't the faintest idea how to go about it. Looking at the original featured image, the cleaning seems to have been carried out at pixel level. I saw a web source about a tecnical process for removing foxing using a technique called inpainting here. I've withdrawn my nomination for this image incidentally. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Been researching these editions. One modern facsimile, the Openheimer Field Edition does indeed use white backgounds. The Commons category contains a complete collection of prints from the University of Pittsburgh edition. That is an example of the original Havell edition. These engravings were aquatints (explaining the speckling Kaldari noticed above and which puzzled me - incidentally Mary Cassatt was a master of the coloured aquatint - this is one of hers I uploaded to Commons) which were then hand painted with water color. Comparing the examples on the Audubon Society pages with the Pittsburg edition, you can see that the Pittsburg edition is very heavily toned and that it would be quite impossible to restore the original aquatint wash, thus our restorer's (I think we can bin the two-finger quotes in the circumstances) decision I expect to provide a white background on her restoration. The Christie's set I mention from the Duke of Portland is much better but they aren't reproduced on their site (after dezoomifying I mean) in such high resolution, but it should be possible to recover the aquatint tone from their reproductions. I will upload at least the Prothonotary Warbler image into a Duke of Portland subcategory on the Commons page should anyone like to have a go. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prothonotary Warbler isn't among the 40 or so Christie's images. I'll upload the version of the featured image mentioned above. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done (thumbnailed) Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaldari:, @Amandajm: I've uploaded a pseudo detone image for the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker (thumbnailed), complete with the naive Mathematica algorithm I used. It's only half-size because I've only got my laptop with me and it doesn't have enough memory for the full-size. I'll upload the Prothonotary Warbler later. Might be useful, but I shan't nominate it for "Featured". Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Coat of Many Colours: Defoxing isn't something that can be properly done by algorithm, IMO. It requires careful work in the 'levels' and 'hue/saturation' interfaces in Photoshop. In particular, you want to completely remove ("dodge") the range of tones that comprise the page color without negatively affecting the tones in the artwork. Sometimes this isn't even possible, but Photoshop definitely makes it easier. Sometimes you can get a pretty clean de-foxing just by using the input levels graph in the levels interface and the set whitepoint tool. You'll almost always need to do some manual clean-up afterwards though. Kaldari (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I should mention that I can notice the artifacts of the incomplete defoxing of the warblers image even at thumbnail size. If it isn't noticeable to you, you may have your monitor contrast too high. Kaldari (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure that's right (and I do make that clear on the Commons page). However I'm frankly surprised that this naive algorithm does so well and I'm planning some tweaks based on Mathematica's HistogramTransform function (taking the virtually pristine Duke of Portland's edition as a reference work, but I'm constrained by RAM limitations). I think it's worth persisting because it's very unlikely high resolution images of the Audubon engravings other than the Pittsburg ones, sadly toned in my opinion, will become available. But I shan't maintain the debate here. Thanks for your comments. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Berthe Morisot With a Bouquet of Violets

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2014 at 07:11:52 (UTC)

Reason

Édouard Manet's famous portrait of Berthe Morisot

Articles in which this image appears

Édouard Manet, Berthe Morisot, Black, List of paintings by Édouard Manet

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Édouard Manet

• Support as nominator – Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although the creator field needs to be fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Done.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Amandajm (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very good picture. And it is indeed famous... . Hafspajen (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Iconic. Sca (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Great painting. CorinneSD (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Looked at your User page. So excellent! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Yann (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Edouard Manet - Berthe Morisot With a Bouquet of Violets - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Added it to People/Artists and writers, as this is a portrait and there is no article about it. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Angelus

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2014 at 07:49:38 (UTC)

Reason

Jean-François Millet's famous painting The Angelus

Articles in which this image appears

The Angelus (painting), Jean-François Millet, Droit de suite, Martinus Sieveking

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Jean-François Millet

• Support as nominator – Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Good scan, a bit dark but as it's set at the end of a working day that's to be expected. The creator is not "Artwork", though. It's Millet. The uploader =/= creator. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to do with "Creator" now: the template says "the creator of the image, where possible using the format wikiuser" Done anyway.

• "where possible using the format wikiuser" means if the creator is a Wikipedian. If the creator is someone from Flickr (like File:Lucky Diamond Rich face.jpg), a painter (like this one), etc. we should link elsewhere (an article on the photographer, the flickr feed, whatever). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is a very dark version. In order to see it t something like its real tonality, I have to up the brightness of my monitor to the max. I would like to see the overall brightness increased to a point where it looks right at a setting that is closer to medium. Amandajm (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine on my monitor, but these LED monitors nowadays are a real nuisance. I have mine tilted towards me (I really can't be getting on with vertical) but that means I have to stand to get a proper look at images. Regarding brightness I was looking at the most linked version of Van Gogh's The Potato Eaters this morning. That's been brightened to a quite unacceptable level, to the point I'm not prepared to nominate it for "Featured". It's quite inauthentic in my opinion. This one (Angelus I mean) is the museum image. I shouldn't want to tinker with it. Wikiart's verion, for example, is a travesty. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice picture, but one has to think of visibility. I might support if brighter -lighter version can be proposed, - e.g. an alt - if possible. Add one, but not sure about that either, that one - the other scan we have on commons - it is of a weird reddish colour. Here is someting in between.. Hafspajen (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SmartHistory has a video shot in natural light here. You can see the colour values are the same, but the lighting is a little warmer. Colour temperature (i.e. whether the painting was viewed on bright sunny day or on a dull day - the D'Orsay has overhead vaulting letting in the light) is not something you can adjust in a JPG as far as I know. Crisco would know more about that than me. On the other hand if you start fiddling with the brightness control all you get is a washed out image because, like The Potato Eaters, this is an image which is supposed to be dark - it's a representation of evening prayer in the fields - and in particular the faces are in shadow. I can only repeat for myself I have no problem with the image. Of course it's for community consensus. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• One can adjust warmth, but after the Olympia debacle I will not be doing anything of the like. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well yes, but if you start doing that here you do end up with something along the lines of the hopelessly orange Wikiart Alt1. But it's true one can be overly respectful, and it's just a fact of life that art images vary very widely in fidelity. It's when you start tinkering with the museum image that I begin to feel uncomfortable. Nevertheless the Van Gogh image above I think probably does need warming. I shall look the other way ... :). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Haha, Coaty, you see that things can be more complicated than they might seem... in the beggining. Hafspajen (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• :) Yes, well the Van Gogh image is very strange. I was tinkering with it earlier on in my image processor using Lch space, and I coudn't do anything with it. The blues are too light I think. Strange. The National Gallery charges serious money for their digital images ... Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm. Hafspajen (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temple of Caitanya Mahaprabhu in Mayapur

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2014 at 09:16:09 (UTC)

Reason

The image is of good quality and resolution. It has high EV as it adds significantly to a number of key articles on Gaudiya Vaishnavism, being a photograph of its founder Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's birthplace. It also arguably has decent composition and aesthetic value.

Articles in which this image appears

Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Bhaktivinoda Thakur, Mayapur, Nabadwip, Nadia district

FP category for this image

Religion and mythology

Creator

Cinosaur

• Support as nominator – Cinosaur (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - nice image. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm undecided on supporting it at the moment as the image quality is a little low, but it's an interesting composition and we're lacking good photography of India. I noticed it had quite a lot of image noise, and I've uploaded a noise reduced version over the top of it. If you don't appreciate the change, feel free to revert, but I don't think any detail was lost in the reduction. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diliff, it was difficult to get any closer to the object because of the pond, and the kind of equipment used did not allow for a better image quality. (I wish you were there with your awesome cameras and skills.) As for retouching the image, thanks for the try. It's hard for my layman eye to detect any "before and after" changes without a guided side-by-side comparison, but as you said it didn't visibly do away with any detail of the original and it does appear slightly sharper now. And yes, the conspicuous lack of good (what to speak of featured) India-themed images on Wikipedia was my main incentive in nominating this one – which hopefully will be factored in by its reviewers. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I understand that not everyone can (or should) shoot everything with professional camera equipment and yes, I think the inherent lack of quality imagery of certain regions is taken into consideration, but ultimately the project's goal is to feature the best that Wikipedia can offer. As for comparing the before and after, it's just a matter of opening the two images in different browser tabs and then switching back and forth. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diliff, I can see that the image is less grainy now and the colors appear to be marginally more solid. So I am happy with the retouched version. Many thanks. Cinosaur (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Quality picture. This photo captures the temple in its relation to the river, which makes it complete. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial support I am no expert in the quality of the image; so can't comment on that. However, the image is good in EV and aesthetics IMO. Disclaimer: Invited here by the nominator (User_talk:Redtigerxyz#FP_nomination_for_Yogapith_temple) and discussion of the image usage User_talk:Cinosaur#File:Yogapith.2C_Mayapur.jpg_usage.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, Redtigerxyz. I invited you and a few other editors actively involved with India-themed topics to comment on the nomination as those who might be in a better position to assess its EV. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support Per Ðiliff. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality photo from an under-represented region with strong EV. If a higher quality version comes along we can, if need be, delist and replace this image. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I was also invited, presumably as I am active on articles to do with India. It's a good picture and looks like a useful one. Sure, maybe it's not perfect - perhaps it would be better if it weren't square in the middle, but that's just a quibble. I like the reflection in the pond. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. In spite of the technical deficiencies, the composition is good and it's an interesting looking temple. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - very nice work. Nikhil (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Could you add geocoding please? Yann (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your review, Yann. Geocoding template added to the image page. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Yogapith, Mayapur.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Placed image in Places/Architecture, as every temple is there. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vase with Fifteen Sunflowers

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2014 at 09:33:25 (UTC)

Reason

The version of Vincent van Gogh's iconic Sunflowers at the National Gallery. London

Articles in which this image appears

Sunflowers (Van Gogh series), National Gallery, Décoration for the Yellow House

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Vincent van Gogh

• Support as nominator Support proposed new nomination (see ensuing discussion) - Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is this looking so flat and colourless? Van Gogh's paintins are not like this. Hafspajen (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that's quite true, and that also struck me forcefully when I fist saw this reproduction (it's the National Gallery's image) early last year. But I had just done London and haven't been back since, so I can't check. Part of the problem is this damned LED thing again I'm sure, but it does strike me as lacking saturation. I have Martin Bailey's recent book on the Sunflowers back at home and the illustration there is much more orange. I do think the image needs some expert attention, but I don't have the skills and in any case I don't have any visual memory of it. Perhaps the nomination just shouldn't be supported. I would understand that. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• looks like some Van Gogh paintings are like this indeed. See this another version. - Blieusong (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the one you showed is very different in colours and stucture from this. Or it is only a better copy. Hafspajen (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Blieusong:: Very grateful to Blieusong for pointing this out. I know the VGM version well and their image is much more faithful (the pale blue of the signture in the VGM is authentic for example, whereas in the National Gallery version it is not - it should be maroon). There are two good possibilities for the VGM version, a Google Art Project version which has an overly bright background and disappointing resolution, and a drop dead gorgeous ultra-high resolution version thumbnailed right, which curiously seems to come from the National Gallery, London as well, the subject of an exhibition earlier this year.

What I'll do is close this nomination for the NG version when the seven days are up as unsuccessful and nominate the VGM version instead. At least that's my plan barring sudden support for the NG original version, but I do agree the NG original version is very problematic . Thanks to Hafs his input. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reflecting on it, I wonder whether the photographer of the National Gallery version was trying to compensate for the known instability of Chrome Yellow (the cheap yellow Van Gogh used after 1886). Doesn't get my vote if she was.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support candidate 2 – Editør (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Simply a more detailed image than the Original. – Editør (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support candidate 2 Not even sure looking at the actual one is a better experience :). - Blieusong (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's quite right. I'm completely blown away by it. I'll nominate it once this nomination had run its course. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support candidate 2 - A very well done scan indeed! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Do I need to renominate it? I don't know the procedure here? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Try adding it to Template:FPC urgents first. You only need one more support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support candidate 2 Yann (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Vincent van Gogh - Sunflowers - VGM F458.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three Beauties of the Present Day

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2014 at 11:31:45 (UTC)

Reason

Kitagawa Utamaro (1753 – 1806) was a Japanese woodblock print (ukiyo-e) artist. Utamaro is famous for his portraits of feminine beauties, his close-up portraits of beautiful women marked an epoch in the evolution of the Japanese print called bijin-ga (pictures of beautiful women), that is depicting feminine beauty in the Japanese art history. Utamaro is one of the very best representant of this genre.

Articles

Utamaro, Ukiyo-e, Portrait painting and 45 other articles on different Wikis.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/East Asian art

Creator

Kitagawa Utamaro

• Support as nominator – Hafspajen (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Needs categories on Commons (easily fixed). This might have EV in the article on Bijin-ga as well. Minor nitpicks, really. This is easily worth a support (blur is understandable, since the original object isn't even 40cm on its longest side yet this was scanned at 8k pixels). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, fix. Hafspajen (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Perhaps not Utamaro's most famous work, but illustrative of the genre. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Rather a well known Utamaro print ... one of his finest works , here and it is a special composition invented by Utamaro, videly copied later, and it is easy to compare with other works here. Also, this picture is used in many articles on all Wikis. (And it had enough pixels too...) Hafspajen (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Note there's already a featured Utamaro here, a beautifully restored version of this LoC print. Ukiyo-e prints don't age well and that pale chestnut-maroon of the robes probably started life as something quite different. They were used as packing paper in Van Gogh's time! He tried to set up a business in Paris selling them, but it wasn't successful. Degas and Mary Cassatt much influenced by them - more examples of Utamaro in one of my Cassatt sandboxes. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Coat of Many Colours: That whole "packing material" meme is way exaggerated. Hokusai's Manga had been used as packing material by Félix Bracquemond's printer, and Monet may have found some prints in Holland that were used as wrapping paper. The pigments and apper are susceptible to degradation---compare an original to one of the Adachi reprints and see what a difference there is---you can see the clouds in the background of The Great Wave! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I thought that was probably true of the packing paper story, still a good story. That's right about degrading. The quality of surviving copies of these prints varies enormously. Excellent user page of yours - worth checking out. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• AARGH! Don't read that! That was an early draft of the ukiyo-e page that's now up for FAC. I forgot to redirect it to the mainspace article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 14:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoops, sorry. Still looks prety good to me. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The other featured Utamaro is different, a single woman, but this print is using three women as a triangle , and it is a specific composition and a significant work of Utamaro. This composition was invented by Utamaro, and widely copied. And if you look at the category Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/East Asian art, there is no such picture there, actually Bijin-ga is rather poorly represented among our Featured Pictures of East Asian art, weird enough, considering that representing feminine beauty (Bijin-ga) how significant part is of the famous Ukiyo-e Japanese prints. As for the print, old prints lok like this. Hafspajen (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• One interjection: that's a 12th century print; there's quite a difference in appearance between 12th-century and a well-preserved 19th century print. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It say dated about 1793, same year when Louis XVI of France was guillotined... It is probably like 221 year old? Hafspajen (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Added. There's a nice Christie's set of deplorable images by Utamaro here incidentally if anyone's offering. Christie's don't keep their Zoomify images up for ever, so I would grab them quick if genuinely interested. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Uploaded as File:UTAMAKURA (POEM OF THE PILLOW).jpg. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well done! I suspect Mary Cassatt probably didn't have this set in her collection (she had a few from Utamaro) but I'll keep it mind. I'll add to the Commons description when I have a moment. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is it just me, or is this slightly purplish? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes it is. Depends on the quality of the print, paper and so no. Generally, they used hand-made paper; and those woodblocks were used to create lots of prints. ^{like this one: File:Ogata Gekko - Ryu sho ten edit.jpg}. Hafspajen (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hafspajen: I presume this is a response to my comment further up, not to it being purplish? Because I'm not quite convinced that hand-made paper tends towards purple most of the time, and most Ukiyo-es I've seen tend to age yellow. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know Adam. It could be the paper is coloured, it fades downwards. These look like they have a colored background. Maybe to emphasize the witness of the skin. The Light skin in Japanese culture thing. Or... I don't know. It is possible to do many different prints from the same woodblock, and since they were handmade, they would look different, all of them, more or less. It is not like just having one painting and one possible faithful reproduction. They came out differen. Hafspajen (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Does this help? They say something of the use of a sparkling mica-dust background (kirazuri) - and about different copies. This is [about techniques]...Hafspajen (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. I'm not sure - the faces are normally very, very white in geisha prints, it seems odd they're slightly coloured. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The white face is paint. Everything on a Japanese woodcut print is put there. If the use plain paper and skip the white print plate, then it will be no white face. And if you put only a little, it will be hardly noticeable, like here probably. It is a special technic they use, the Nishiki-e. A nishiki-e print is created by carving a separate woodblock for every color, and using them in a stepwise fashion, made by hand. They put the paper on the plate and push, once for lines, once for colors, details, extra colors, and so on. It is not a painting, it is a print. It all depends on how the actual print was made. Hafspajen (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Have you tried to click on show details?, left upper corner ? IT reads like this, from The Toledo Museum of Art, USA,: (citation) Kitagawa Utamaro's interest in physiognomy, —the study of an individual's facial features as an indication of their character—helped lead to his skill at subtly altering the features of each face to create a sense of portraiture and individuality, such as the position and spacing of the eyes, the shape of the nose, and the placement of the ears. At the same time he retained a stylized, ideal beauty characterized by oblong faces and small eyes and mouths.Three Beauties demonstrates three new developments in Japanese printmaking that Utamaro helped make popular during the Edo period: the use of the so-called "big head" composition (okubi-e), which provides a close-up of each subject; the pyramidal formation of the figures; and the use of a sparkling mica-dust background (kirazuri) that sets off the soft matte tones of the faces. This print is one of at least three known states (versions with some variation of detail) of this design and includes a title cartouche in the upper right corner. Hafspajen (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• And Utamaro's prints look like this sometimes, se book cover Utamaro revealed here. Hafspajen (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would agree with User:Adam Cuerden that the colour of this print is too mauve/pink all over. The grey here is a warm pinkish grey. It should be a cool grey (not blue grey either but slightly yellowed, if anything). The overall colour cast needs tweaking slightly. It just mean that by whatever process this was reproduced, the balance wasn't quite right. Otherwise, it is a well-composed print.
  Also, this triangular composition may have been innovative in Japanese art, but it had become a common compositional device in Italian art in the 1300s.
  I would like to make some adjustments to the caption,before it's used. Amandajm (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the MFA Boston version by way of reference. To illustrate the problems confronted by a "restorer" this is Commons:File:Kitagawa Utamaro - Takashima Ohisa Using Two Mirrors to Observe Her Coiffure Night of the Asakusa Marketing Festival - MFA Boston 21.6410.jpg uploaded by me earlier this year. This is the version owned by Mary Cassatt and hung for many years on her walls, showing the effects of fading (Mathews, Shapiro, Mary Cassatt: The Color Prints p. 65). The first (I mean the same example 21.6410 at Boston MFA) is reproduced at p. 67 of Mathews & Shapiro, where the grey of the robes in the museum image is revealed as in fact a plum colour. Good luck. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Mind you, I'm a little scared of another Olympia situation. I don't suppose anyone can actually look at it? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, and who did that Olympia-situation, if not Naughty-Coaty, before graciously joining the gang? Hafspajen (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ukiyo-e prints really don't keep well. Not only does the cheap newspaper quality paper tone a lot, the everyday printers' inks employed were also cheap and hopelessly fugitive. These prints were not destined for the fine art market but for popular consumption. That pale chestnut-marooon (ubiquitous in surviving examples of these prints) I mention above could have started life anywhere from red to green and in between. The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston has one of the largest and finest collection of these prints, but as you can readily see they generally haven't aged well: Abalone Divers is typical. What should be at stake here is the authenticity. Has the file been digitally processed and if so is the result authentic (or if not, at least meritorious on aesthetic grounds). In this case it's the museum image image via Google Art Ptoject and so far it hasn't been tinkered with. So I don't think there any issues regarding authenticity to worry about here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ukiyo-e was printed on a variety of paper qualities for different audiences and purposes, from the luxurious to the relatively inexpensive, but I don't think you could call any of it "cheap newspaper quality". They were generally hand-made mulberry paper, and the full-colour nishiki-e prints in particular (that are synonymous with "ukiyo-e" in the West) had to be of higher quality to withstand the multiple impressions of the different colour woodblocks (up to twenty in some cases). Utamaro had the same publisher as Sharaku—Tsutaya Jūzaburō—who was known to employ lavish printing techniques such as dusting the backgrounds with mica. Remember, the audience for these prints were not poor farmers, but the wealthy urban bourgeois who could afford to spend their time and money whoring in the pleasure districts—people who had larger incomes than those in the ruling samurai class. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 14:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I admit to talking out of the box "newspaper quality", but it was nevertheless art for mass consumption was it not? And it was precisely that aspect that attracted Westerners such as Degas and Cassatt. That Adachi facsimile is beautiful. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• They were mass-produced, but "mass" is a relative term—According to this page, in the 19th century they were printed in edtions of a few hundred at a time, and the superstars such as Hiroshige could sell perhaps as many as 5–10,000 copies of their most popular prints. I seem to remember reading elsewhere that many earlier prints were special commissions, for exclusive private clubs and whatnot, in editions of possibly as low as single digits. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like I started quite a debate with this poor picture. I really thougt that this one is going to be a singularly uncontroversial nomination, one of the most beautiful of Utamaro's production... and since we are so low on good pictures in the category Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/East Asian art... Hafspajen (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Curly Turkey, what about the lilac hue? Hafspajen (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I'm not the right guy to ask about that sort of thing... This shouldn't affect this nomination, but here's a modern Adachi reprint, to give an idea of how much the colours have degraded. Of course, that'll be true for any original. They weren't created with long-term preservation in mind. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 15:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, I suspected this, but didn't want to just guess---according to the Adachi page, the whole background is dusted with mica, which gives a glittery effect that I image would never show up in a scan---though there's usually a certain quality to the scans that tells you it's one of those mica-dusted prints. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 15:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you think, Curly Turkey, Crisco 1492, Amandajm, Adam Cuerden, Coat of Many Colours that we should use the REPRINT showed here as a re-nomination instead of the original, the print from museum scan, 200 years old? Hafspajen (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Original, not reprint. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not familiar enough with the guidelines; all I'll say is that several of the other ukiyo-e FPs are reprints---the other Utamaro's an Adachi. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 16:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I do support the original. It meets all the criteria. I can't help thinking that there's a small galaxy of images out there that in fact meet the requirements, but so long as they come in and we keep up I don't see why we shouldn't support them. I would also support a knowledgeable restoration such as Durova did with Ase o fuku onna (Woman wiping sweat). As for the reprint, that would be brilliant except I suspect it's still in copyright. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Copyright issue interesting on reflection. These Adachi prints date from around 1950s it seems. Are they in copyright in US law. They can't be said to be 'faithful representations' can they? Or are they classed as mere derivative works? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• They couldn't possibly be under copyright—there's no creative element to them, which is the basis under which you can obtain copyright. For those who don't know what Adachi is about: The company was founded in 1926 to reproduce ukiyo-e prints using the original techniques—this means they re-carved all the woodblocks by hand, and do all the printing by hand, too (the faded bokashi effects can't be reproduced by machine, such as in the fading blue skies). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It may well be my Brit perspective getting in the way but I am dubious. I know nothing about US copyright law, but I do know Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. because of another debate I took part in on Wikipedia. That case was about copying fonts and the Court upheld the plaintiff (on the distinctly curious grounds in my estimation) that the plaintiff displayed creativity in selecting control points for their Bezier splines (smoothing curves). Similarly surely it can be argued that Adachi displayed creativity in their selection, for example, of printing inks. The very act of printing, as I'm sure you know and will concede, is a creative one. Imagine a small museum in the US somewhere. They have a number of Japanese prints and generate useful income (or did until Wikipedia arrived) on selling poster reproductions. The museum Director has a wheeze: why not lift a few Adachi prints into a glossy little souvenir? Handy income and no royalties to pay. Somehow I can't see it, even in the US. Can you really? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how the oranges of Adobe can be compared to the grapes (sorry) of these reprints. It's long been held that faithful reproductions of 2D works acquire no new copyright in the US; this includes attempts to best recreate how a work originally looked. As such, even Adam's claim to copyright for his fantastic restoration work might not be defendable in the United States, amazing as that seems. I recall I tried to nominate a restored version of A Trip to the Moon for deletion, but it was kept (discussion here). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that Adachi's selling point is that they reproduce these prints as exactly as possible—right down to how the individual hairs are carved and the mica dusting—I imagine they've foregone any claims of having crossed the threshold of originality. I'm definitely not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but this document suggests the threshold is higher than it is in the States, and we know the States has a higher threshold than the UK (no "sweat of the brow" stuff). On top of that, the Library of Congress has made available a pile of Adachi prints noted "Rights Advisory: No known restrictions on publication." Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I always make it clear that I'm not a lawyer, know nothing substantial about US copyright law and indeed copyright law in general, and I'm always prepared to defer to experts, whether real, television or for that matter wikipedian.
  The paradox about facsimiles is that they are indeed by their very nature faithful representations, but they are also restorations and, my point, involve many creative decisions. What's at stake here is not a museum trying to generate an income that they in reality have no right to, but a bona fide industry with many antecedents.
  However it's true that the Library of Congress does tag Adachi prints in the way you say - this is an example. They regard them as reprints of an original, which I think is wrong in fact. I shall email them for clarification and report back. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I'll lose whatever faith I have in copyright if you turn out to be right (the very idea seems to spit in the face of the spirit of American copyright laws), but keep in mind that Japanese copyright only extends for fifty years for corporate works, so any of these reproductions whose blocks were cut before 1964 are in the public domain in Japan any way one slices it (such as this, purchased in 1938). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's instinct, not really knowledgeable on American copyright law as I stress. Didn't know that about Japan copyright law, but at Commons it must be PD in both nation of origin and US. At the beginning of this year I uploaded to the English Wikipedia some Fair Use images of Charlotte Salomon's work, which had come into PD in Europe but not (generally) into the US because of URAA considerations. I was astonished to find that these Fair Use images could not be copied to the Netherlands, French of German, the countries most associated with her, wikis because (so it seems) they only allow uploads from Commons (later in the year I was able to upload some images of hers to Commons given the dispensation there about URAA). Here's a link to a facsimile of William Blake's The Book of Urizen published by the Trianon press for the William Blake Society. At this dealer it's offered for £975 and there are numeous other facsimile edition, some of them very expensive indeed and sought by coillectors, of Blake's other works. The point is that indeed there's an industry in these kinds of facsimiles. I really do doubt that the spirit of the "faithful representation" doctrine in the US can extend to these. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, of course there's a market for these things, but the fact that there's money to be made isn't a consideration in US copyright law (is it in the UK/Europe?). I would be shocked if those editions were considered eligible for copyright. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you're right about money to be made. What I meant to suggest is that whereas no one really laments the fact that museums have been stiffed of their reproduction revenues (and American museums were amongst the most vociferous in protecting them) because we instinctively recognise that they don't really own those rights on work that have come into the public domain, it's a different matter when it comes to restorations ("facsimiles"), which is a niche industry in the art world and which undoubtedly would cease to exit if their copyright weren't granted. Of course a loss, to say nothing of the loss of livelihood of its employees. The US case law in question is Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. That concerned photography. It's quite a stretch to move to cutting woodblocks, selecting inks and printing impressions as merely "slavish copying". I shall email LoC for their views and if I get a reply let you know on your Talk page. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll be glad to read it. I have to say, though, that Bridgeman v. Corel only makes me more confident that Adachi prints are uncopyrightable, particularly here:

  But he ruled that the plaintiff, by its own admission, had performed "slavish copying", which did not qualify for copyright protection. "[I]ndeed", he elaborated, "the point of the exercise was to reproduce the underlying works with absolute fidelity". He noted that "[i]t is uncontested that Bridgeman's images are substantially exact reproductions of public domain works, albeit in a different medium".

  With Adachi, there isn't even a "different medium" in play. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but I'm saying the underlying work (the Adachi restoration) shouldn't be regarded as public domain in the first place. I haven't studied this judgment, but glancing at it (if I recall correctly) much was made about the evolution of the photographic process, that originally it was thought copyrightable whereas today that cannot be maintained.
  Presently, in the context of photographing 3-D objects, it's accepted that the photographer has rights. That she doesn't in 2-D strikes me as frankly perverse, but as I say it's not something I lose sleep about over museum images. Facsimile editions a different matter. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, I can't grasp that "perversity" at all. It sounds to me more like an underhanded way to rob the Public Domain. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What I really meant that is that it's perverse to say that photos of 3-D images are somehow more creative than photos of 2-D images. I would like to see that imaging of any PD work by any means doesn't attract fresh copyright, but that would be strictly *imaging* and not the recreation or restoration of the original work by for example cutting woodblocks, taking plaster casts of sculptures and so on. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Coaty be the nice, brilliant, lovely guy we all appreciate. Hafspajen (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Coat, do you do photography? Serious question. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I do, serious answer. But only entry level gear and basically for family snaps. I do know that photographing 2-D objects involves creative choices, hence all the discussion on this forum about various versions. The idea that 3-D photographs are somehow more creative is fairly absurd in my view. Like name your top 10 favourite images of Michelangelo's Pieta ... right, answers on a postcard. The realistic, matter of fact approach to alll this is that imaging of PD work in the modern world should not attract fresh copyright. Give it anothee decade. I'll allow others the last word here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I think it's better to promote this one, and if the colours prove wrong, we can fix it when we have the proof, not before. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a question (I don't hang around here much and don't know the ropes): by "wrong" colours, do you mean not the original colours, or not the colours the print has now after two centuries of fading? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be surprised if something faded lilac, but it could be something like fingers spreading the mica dust around over time. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Yann (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't mean to throw a monkeywrench into the nomination, but if we are insisting on the "original" printing, this isn't it—according to Hideo Matsui, who runs the Koishikawa Ukiyo-e Art Museum, there are only two known copies from the original printing, and they both have the names of the thre beuaties to the left of the title in the top right corner. One of the copies is in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston—you can see it here. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, check out Three Beauties of the Present Day, by the way. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Looks like this discussion resulted in a new article... . Hafspajen (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The later print still has enough EV in that article. Thanks Curly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Kitagawa Utamaro - Toji san bijin (Three Beauties of the Present Day)From Bijin-ga (Pictures of Beautiful Women), published by Tsutaya Juzaburo - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woman with Mirrors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2014 at 16:07:19 (UTC)

Reason

Titian was an influential Italian painter and a painter who used colours in a very special way. He was a big colorist. The golden-reddish hair depicted here, like the hair colour used in many of the other works of Titian, is called Titian red , (also even darker tints) and are inspired of Tizian's luminous paintings and the golden-reddish tint he depicted on his modells, when the light is reflecting on the smoth surface of the depicted materials and hair.

Articles in which this image appears

Woman with a Mirror, Titian

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Titian

• Support as nominator – Hafspajen (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Gorgeous scan of a great work of art. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. But the 'professionals' who photographed this (it wasn't scanned) have got dust on their sensor. There's a series of repeating dust bunnies all over the image, which suggests it was photographed as a mosaic with a small aperture (which exacebates sensor dust) and stitched. Unfortunate though, as it requires cloning over them and falsifying the cracks in the paint in order to fix it. Doable, but not as nice as not having them there in the first place. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support That's right about dust bunnies. There's one just above the eyebrow on the right of the image and that's repeated directly below on the bosom just above the dress. I'm surprised the 'amateur' who warmed this to their satisfaction let them go :) ... Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Be nice, Coaty, or I am going to bite you. Hafspajen (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Get you a four month ban if you do. But right, it's a splendid image, though I don't think its resolution is as good as my proposed new Van Gogh candidate you very nicely think too iconic to support. I challenge anyone to show me an a better ultra high resolution image. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you don't. Keep up the nice, elegant, airy, mannerly coversation. Hafspajen (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Incidentally this is the same kind of IIP image used by the NGA for the Fragonard image below. If @Dcoetzee: can stitch these tiles with a script, as must be the case, it would be great if he can upload the ultra-high resolution version of that as well. For myself I can handle the Zoomify and NG scripts, but after that I'm defeated. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Great image of a fantastic work. --Godot13 (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lovely ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yann (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Portrait d'une Femme à sa Toilette, by Titian, from C2RMF retouched.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Church, London, UK

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2014 at 23:49:18 (UTC)

• 
  Looking east from The Round
• 
  Looking west from the altar to the Round
• 
  The altar, reredos and stained glass
• 
  The organ, featuring the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom

Reason

These four images illustrate, in high resolution, different aspects of the Temple Church, a small but notable 12th century church in London built by the Knights Templar. I was given special permission to photograph this church so there were no visitors walking around to spoil the images.

Articles in which this image appears

Temple Church

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator – Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support! Hafspajen (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Nice images of a (an) historic edifice. Sca (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Excellent images. Thanks for sharing. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - All superb... - Godot13 (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - You don't really need my vote here, but you've won it with your beautiful HDR images. Another 50 image stitch? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • These ones are 30 images (3 columns x 2 rows x 5 exposures). I usually go for 50 when I need the additional two columns for horizontal width (in retrospect, the second image would have benefited from additional width to include more of the organ). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just beautiful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments (although minor conflict of interest seeing as I'm a member of Inner Temple and so this is my "work chapel"!) You had got your wests and easts muddled up in the captions, so I've changed that - the altar is at the east end, so photos from the altar towards the Round are looking west, etc. It's a shame that you've not got any exterior pictures of the building in this set, as the Round isn't really shown well in the photos we've got (although I know that positioning a camera is difficult here). However, I'm not entirely happy with File:Temple Church 5, London, UK - Diliff.jpg since it looks as though the Round is the Oval... surely the three central arches at the top of the Round ought to be the same width, not one narrow in the centre with one wide on each side? It looks too distorted compared to reality - compare [4] [5] for example. The other three images are excellent, but then I am biased! Bencherlite^Talk 19:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. Apologies for getting the ends mixed up. As for File:Temple Church 5, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, it's not really possible to show this angle of view without some distortion. Yes, the 'roundness' of the Round is compromised slightly, but in the example you provided, the vertical columns are leaning inwards (due to the camera being pointed upwards). This is just a geometric limitation when projecting a three dimensional scene onto a two dimensional plane and you have to accept one kind of distortion or the other. It's generally accepted that for architectural photography, it's more important to keep verticals vertical except when distortion becomes too excessive (that's why you would never see a skyscraper photographed from nearby at ground level with corrected verticals). As for the three central arches and the expectation of them being the same width, no, I don't think that's the case. The central arch is facing directly towards the viewer but the two on either side are at an oblique angle (as they follow the circumference of the Round). It's the same as having three books standing up on a table facing the viewer and then twisting the two outer ones inwards. They present less of a face to the viewer and therefore 'appear' thinner. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding my last point, I just realised that I misunderstood what you meant and you were actually suggesting that the middle arch was narrower, not wider. Although my point is still valid and the side arches would be narrower due to the angle of them, the width of the arch is also affected by distance to the viewer and the middle arch is further away than the side arches which contributes to it looking both narrower and shorter. There are a number of geometric factors at play here. In any case, I can't think of any other angles or views that would be an improvement on the image. Moving further back would have obscured the roundness of the Round, moving further forward would have increased the distortion of the Round, and shifting the perspective so that the vertical lean inwards would have been a distortion in itself and would reduce its usefulness as an architectural image IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, I know I'm not going to win any technical argument with Diliff on architectural photography, and my opinions won't actually affect the final result, but... I went back into the church this lunchtime to look again at the views from the far west and the far east (photos 1 and 2). In both cases, the effect of the image is to make the church look much, much longer than it actually is. In photo 1, for example, there looks to be a massive distance between the first two pillars on each side, whereas in reality they are not far apart at all. Similarly, photo 2 makes the Temple Church look more like Winchester Cathedral in length. Photograph 3 is excellent, and I love photograph 4 of the organ (I'm listening to a CD of it that I bought today, having had the pleasure of giving two recitals there in the past - I particularly enjoy seeing the organist's copy of Jehan Alain's Litanies on the console!) So, the net result is that I just don't think that photos 1 and 2 are truly representative of the interior, fine images though they are, leading me to oppose 1 and 2 though I support 3 and 4. Bencherlite^Talk 12:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, wide angle photography does often have the effect of making the interior space look larger than it actually is. If you were to crop images 1 and 2 and only keep the centre, suddenly that effect would largely disppear. I've had a similar debate to this with others, and what I keep finding is that, a) the eye perceives a scene differently to how a camera captures it, and b) some people are more sensitive to certain geometric distortions than others. Some, like yourself, are bothered by the way certain parts of the image appear larger than others. I might know the technical reasons why certain illusions/effects occur, but I can't argue with subjective opinions on what looks good or not. ;-) All I can say is that distortions are unavoidable in any wide angle view and the struggle to represent a subject both accurately and aesthetically is never easy! Thanks for your thoughts and your votes anyway. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 11:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Very nice technical achievement. Also, the result looks very natural despite the (I guess) very heavy processing behind it. On a subjective side, I'd only have straightened (?) the organ picture. - Blieusong (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yann (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Temple Church 5, London, UK - Diliff.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Temple Church 3, London, UK - Diliff.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Temple Church 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Temple Church Organ, London, UK - Diliff.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian one rupiah (first issue, first series)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2014 at 08:01:28 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, high EV. One rupiah from the first issue, first series of rupiah banknotes (dated 1945/issued 1946) in the year Indonesia claimed independence, which was recognized in 1949. Between issuance and independence, these notes were not recognized outside of Indonesia and had no exchange rate.

Articles in which this image appears

Banknotes of the Rupiah, History of the Indonesian rupiah

FP category for this image

Currency

Creator

Republic of Indonesia
From the National Numismatic Collection, NMAH, Smithsonian Institution.
Image by Godot13.

• Support as nominator – Godot13 (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Yes, yes, and yes! (sorry about the shampoo commercial). Lovely piece of history, even if the banknote could be cleaner. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - There's loads of cleaning (as Crisco says) that can be done here that I would support as well. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Ah, Indonesian money... That is what made Crisco exited. Hafspajen (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Respectfully (and mentioned once before), I am uncomfortable doing restoration work on an item that the Smithsonian has allowed me to digitize for them as an accurate and true record of the object (and its condition).--Godot13 (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know, but that red fiber looks like something foreign that got into the scanner. Sorry if it isn't, but that was my impression. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scanner dirt is another issue... Can you locate/annotate the fiber in question on the commons file so I can see? Thanks.-Godot13 (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I struck my comment. You can see red fibres at 100% in the vicinity of the right text box on the reverse side, but I don't think that's scanner dirt but rather artefacts from the red over-printing. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The upper borders of the note's obverse as well... but yeah, looking again it appears to be some kind of ink or pencil marking... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yann (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:IND-17-Republik Indonesia-1 Rupiah (1945).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khao Ping Kan

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2014 at 16:20:06 (UTC)

Reason

Simply beautiful (good technical quality and crosses the other bars too)

Articles in which this image appears

Khao Phing Kan

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Diego Delso

• Support as nominator –  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hafspajen (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Been there. Have a pic somewhere. It's not so good. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What's not so good? Your picture that you took? Hafspajen (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoops. Thanks for that. I definitely meant my picture wasn't so good. This one however is splendid and supported by me. Off-topic, but nearby there's a fish farm they take you to. The community live *above* the farm on stilts and erm ... *feed* it in a natural way ... just a thought the next time you buy a pack of juicy prawns from this part of the world . Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I went to a restaurant-cum-fish farm yesterday. They never have to feed the fish, as customers just throw their leftovers in the water - splish, dinner's ready. (It's catch and release too, so they can grow fairly big) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - lovely image and, to me, just epitomises my memories of Thailand. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Could you add geocoding please? Yann (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Object location added. Diego would have to add the camera location. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done and thanks a lot to Crisco 1492 for this nomination! Poco² 23:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Not sure how I missed this one...--Godot13 (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Isla Tapu, Phuket, Tailandia, 2013-08-20, DD 36.JPG --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

City of Workers

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2014 at 18:05:41 (UTC)

Reason

A compelling work from the noted Berlin Secession artist Hans Baluschek, illustrating an article newly translated from German Wikipedia. (Nominated for DYK too.)

Articles in which this image appears

Hans Baluschek

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Hans Baluschek

• Support as nominator – Sca (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - There are two very different colour patterns in the history of this image... which ones are correct? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Answer This one, here you can read about it. Also one can compare here and maybe here. Hafspajen (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, thanks. Support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Interesting reading about the artwork. ^{(BTW; The art museum call it: Working-class City)} Hafspajen (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Hans Baluschek entirely new to me. That's certainly a wonderful painting and a very nice museum image. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Honestly thought I had already voted. Strange. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yann (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. That's one excellent painting. De728631 (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Intriguing painting. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Agree this is a very compelling painting. Evocative. Fylbecatulous talk 14:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Hans Baluschek - Arbeiterstadt (1920).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Falkirk Wheel time lapse

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2014 at 19:32:16 (UTC)

Reason

This is something a bit different from me, a video time lapse of the rotational of the Falkirk Wheel, a unique boat lift in Scotland which raises the height of the boat by 24 metres to connect the Forth and Clyde Canal with the Union Canal. Although it is a video, it is, at 3840 x 2160, actually well above the minimum resolution requirements of an image and is 4k / Ultra high definition television compliant. The video itself is 6|10 seconds long, but covers a real time period of approximately 10 minutes.

Articles in which this image appears

Falkirk Wheel

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Machinery or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator – Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Excellent video and my first introduction to this technical marvel. Great EV. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is quite amazing. Apparently it's so well balanced that the total cost to run per day is less than £10. Probably a fact that should be included in the article if I can find a citation. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very nice time lapse photography, very useful and encyclopedic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems a little too quick perhaps, though it's extremely well-shot. Could we slow it down slightly without making it too jerky? Also, next time you're roaming around Scotland, let us Scottish people know - it'd be nice to meet up. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I agree on reflection that it is a bit fast. It's comprised of 157 frames, which is 6.5 seconds at 24 fps. I could slow it down to 13 seconds at 12 fps but it would obviously become more jerky. I did actually investigate some kind of frame interpolation (something like Twixtor) but I couldn't get it to work well without some weird warping. Leave it with me and I'll see if I can improve it. At the very least I can bring it down to 12 fps. Unfortunately it was a bit of a flying visit to that part of Scotland (spent most of my time in the north-west around Skye!) but next time, I'll let you know! Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've uploaded a new version which is 15 fps and 10 seconds in length. Hopefully this is an acceptable compromise. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's great, Support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• support Very captivating, but a bit sad we don't see the boats entering the lifts... - Blieusong (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - nice work. Nikhil (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 11:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pteronura brasiliensis 18:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yann (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is webM.©Geni (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support! Jee 17:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Falkirk Wheel Timelapse, Scotland - Diliff.webm --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Placed it in Engineering and technology/Machinery, as there is already a picture about the Falkirk Wheel. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sgùrr nan Gillean

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2014 at 19:10:52 (UTC)

Reason

It's a crisp, high resolution, aesthetically pleasing view of the mountain of Sgùrr nan Gillean, as well as the surrounding landscape and vegetation. Weather and visibility was close to perfect. The image is 40 megapixels and sharp at 100%.

Articles in which this image appears

Sgùrr nan Gillean and Cuillin

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator – Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - another excellent pic meeting all requirements. I can confirm sharpness at 100% Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Another great landscape image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support excellent quality and great work as usual. Nikhil (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems good! Looks like a wide angle lens, not quite sure if your using the 5D Mark 3 or a better full-frame camera. ///EuroCarGT 03:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still the 5D Mk iii. It's a stitched image which has been downsampled slightly. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • So it's a photomerge. Thought you were using a 16-35 or 17-40mm lens. ///EuroCarGT 03:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose, with regret. Technically high standard but not an outstanding photograph. This is one of the most photogenic places in Scotland yet the landscape is not imaginatively captured nor is the time of day/year or weather showing it at its best [though it is far from the worst weather!]. The choice of viewpoint and wide-angle means the subject is quite small in the frame, which is particularly noticeable in thumbnail. The burn is rather dry so not adding any drama or interest. The relatively high viewpoint leaves the grassy moorland in the middle to fill much of the frame and stops the burn successfully leading the eye towards the peaks. Compare this and this, which make use of a bridge to add foreground interest. Compare this which has dramatic water. Compare this and this which have a considerably more photogenic time of year and day. The subject is great, but the other things are the difference between an FP and not. -- Colin°^Talk 12:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't know. One doesn't always have to have the dramatic effects in mind. Mountains are nice as they are, and this picture has it points as it is, right now. It shows a much wider area, which is good, and it is taken in the summer, so it can't be snow on top. The other ones show more of the rocks as a foreground, but this shows more of the whole area. Hafspajen (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I struggled with deciding between weak oppose and neutral. I'd be more comfortable with a straight oppose on Commons, as there simply isn't enough wow (esp for a subject that can be photographed with plenty wow). Mere technical utility isn't sufficient for en:fp either -- it needs a little magic to make it among the "finest". But nobody should let my vote influence their decision/opinion -- there are plenty fine attributes about this image too. -- Colin°^Talk 08:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support *sigh* I think I'm guilty of judging this one what it could be rather than what it is. I've seen many wonderful photos of this mountain range on postcards and calendars that my reaction was a bit of a let down on seeing this. But looking at it again today, I see colours blending from warm rocks through green moorland to grey mountain tops to blue sky. This is what it looks like on a fine sunny summer's day, rather than on a calendar. -- Colin°^Talk 16:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support thanks, Colin. Hafspajen (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A very pretty picture and a good representation of the landscape. Pteronura brasiliensis 18:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Could you add geocoding please? Yann (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry, I usually add geocoding for all of my images, just forgot this one. Done now. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Easy decision. Stunning photograph with fantastic EV. J Milburn (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sgùrr nan Gillean from Sligachan, Isle of Skye, Scotland - Diliff.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unisphere

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2014 at 02:45:44 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality and decent EV

Articles in which this image appears

Unisphere

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture

Creator

Flapane on Italian Wikipedia

• Support as nominator – Nikhil (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I hate to bring this up, but should there be concerns about the copyright status of the sculpture? --Paul_012 (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lovely picture. That's right about copyright since Freedom of Panorama doesn't extend to sculptures in the US, but it's OK if it was installed before 1977 without a copyright notice (or one that was renewed), as the vast majority of such works were. I've added the appropriate template. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to differentiate between the sculpture and the photograph there. The photograph is certainly not PD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's understood of course. Usually these descriptions don't explicitly make the distinction. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's best practice to include a way to differentiate them. Adam differentiates between the copyright of the source work and his restoration (restorations attract new copyright in the UK), and when I've been asked to note the copyright of a structure on a description page I've generally separated the copyright for the structure and the photograph. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just went to do it and saw you've already done it. In future I'll make the distinction, but as I say the vast majority of these files don't. It's logical to make the distinction and it might serve a purpose in educating the surprising number of people who imagine just donating an image they took themselves confers PD on the image. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This gives me the strong impression that they had copyrighted the statue. I'd hope for an RS that says it is PD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does that document suggest to you it had been copyrighted? I'm not being obstructive when I note that most artworks weren't copyrighted at the time. That's just a fact. I've seen a figure of 90% quoted as not copyrighted. Of course it can be easily checked, but I should hope it needn't go to that. It's been on Commons nearly three years and no one's challenged it despite the extensive patrolling that site receives. I appreciate the criteria say the work should be PD but there's no cause to challenge it's not, and that's not what we're about, the original issue raised here doubtlessly in ignorance of US copyright law. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No entries for Gilmore D Clarke (the landscape artist who designed the work and presumably owns any copyright) at the US Copyright Office. You have to present yourself in person for registrations before 1978. There are various records for "Unisphere", but these refer to a jazz suite by Dave Brubeck performed at the World Fair. I think there's due diligence here and we need not worry about copyright Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know we'd have to go in person, which is why I didn't rely only on that source (we could also find PDFs of the actual records, but my connection can't handle that). I believe that source suggests United States Steel is the copyright holder. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, Commons lets copyvios get by all the time. I wouldn't take 3 years on Commons as proof that someone has looked into this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The document talks about the World Fair registering the Unisphere's image as a trademark. The copyright of the work itself, however, belongs to the creator on my understanding and that doesn't seem to have been registered. I suggest you raise it at one of the copyright forums. @Stefan2: Stefan will know. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was constructed over 1963 and 1964 so (if it has a notice) which year was it published? If 1963 then copyright would have to have been renewed (1991?). Can we check for renewal with certainty? (I am out of my depth so these are remarks and not statements of fact.). Thincat (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi Thincat. Thanks for responding. I was looking for renewals when I searched at US Copyright. I didn't see any. Just the Dave Brubeck quartet thing (which I must search out and have a listen). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hi. I couldn't find anything either, but I don't know how to do these things properly. If it was first published in 1964 I don't think it would have needed renewal. Thincat (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Missed the first question: the copyright holders (US Steel) were very strict about enforcing the copyright on images which reproduced the statue (note how they required copyright notices be included for all published photographic reproductions). This attention to copyright suggests they would have copyrighted the original statue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • The problem with looking for a renewal is that the absense of a renewal is not proof that this has lapsed into PD territory. See the Hirtle chart: 1964 through 1977 (Published with notice) expires 95 years after publication date (earliest 2060). No renewal necessary. All we need is proof of notice (hard to do unless we check the whole sculpture) and registration (much simpler). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • K, I've been through Archive.org's scans, and the only copyrights for the Unisphere I found were photographic representations of it. Guess this is PD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Unisphere.2C_Flushing_Meadow. Response so far is that unregistered work before 1977 is PD (for the benefit of newcomers to US copyright law, before that date works had to be formally registered for copyright protection and works of art generally were not). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Concerning the copyright question, the outcome of the discussion is that its public domain status is confirmed. It would be a pity if editors refrained from supporting this fine image out of scruples over copyright. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, sharp enough, tourists add scale (and thus I don't mind them). Though I'd put this in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Added the same. Thanks for your suggestion. Nikhil (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Could you add geocoding please? Yann (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for the delay in replying. I have asked the author for the same and am awaiting his reply. Thanks. Nikhil (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi there, I'm the original uploader. I've just added geocoding tags on Commons page. Thanks for letting me know. --Flapane (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. It's a very nice photo, but looking more closely, I found myself rather distracted by the building with flag seemingly floating behind the sculpture, its base obscured by the fountains. Crop also feels rather tight at the top. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral It's a very nice photo, but looking more closely, I found myself rather distracted by the flowerbed and its colors in the foreground. The picture would have been much cleaner and clearer if the photograph was standing in such manner that the flowerbed was behind him. The turist I don't mind. Hafspajen (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

U-21 sinking the Linda Blanche

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2014 at 13:52:43 (UTC)

Reason

A rather fine artwork by a notable WWI painter. The depiction of the U-boat is quite good, the Linda Blanche not very, but then, it's not like he could ask England for pictures of the ship his country just sunk.

Articles in which this image appears

Willy Stöwer, SM U-21 (Germany)

FP category for this image

WP:Featured pictures/History/WWI

Creator

Willy Stöwer

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Some water damage and browning near the edges. If you want to put this through as is, fine, but I just thought I'd point it out. I'd fix the first one, personally — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't normally like to clean paintings, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right. I seem to have thought this was a lithograph like the earlier ship images (which you do clean). What's the original size of this painting? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, I don't know. I'm pretty sure it's watercolour, so probably not huge. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, nitpick: U-21 is a dab page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, fixed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — Oddly enough, the text of SM U-21 (Germany) doesn't mention the sinking of the Linda Blanche, and neither does the corresponding German article [6] — but this illustration is included in SM U-21 (Germany) anyway. Komisch. Sca (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long story short: U-21 sunk a lot of ships; this is a good illustration of it doing so. I suppose that I do have sources to add the Linda Blanche in, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And for what it's worth, I'm planning on expanding the U-21 article in the near term. Parsecboy (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC);s[reply]
• Support. You don't have a good image for James Clark The Great Sacrifice, an immensely popular WW1 print, by any chance Adam? I uploaded an image from The Art Newspaper earlier this year, but looking out for a better. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I probably could have a decent go at finding it, but it's not going to be soon. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Would appreciate it. I was thinking Imperial War Museum perhaps? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I live the opposite side of the country (possibly soon to become me living in a different country to London - Scottish independence referendum, you know), but it was originally published in The Graphic, and that's a pretty commonly-held newspaper in libraries - much easier. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I might head back too (half of me hails from Boleskine). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Alright, assuming this isn't crazy big, it's good enough resolution for FP IMHO. Good example of the artist's work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Crisco, and I like this picture. It has atmosphere. Hafspajen (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Hafs, it creates a mood and uses dimensionality well.--Godot13 (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Awesome picture!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 01:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yann (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — Aesthetically, I like the picture too, but before it's FP'd the U-21 article [7] absolutely should be expanded (if only a little) to include the sinking of the Linda Blanche — evidently, an American vessel sunk before the U.S. entered WWI, thus historically interesting. Sca (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]