Support as nominator – GamerPro64 02:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – An interesting, dynamic and action-filled screenshot... not. --Janke | Talk 08:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Janke. MER-C 10:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per previous. Sca (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm... not sure every game has a hugely action-filled screenshot that would be relevant. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 02:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Adam Cuerden. --Wow (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Adam Cuerden. Geoffroi (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Photo of BASE jumping, good depiction of the sport, good angle of view and composition. I think of the wide angle barrel distortion as part of the composition in this case, and not a bad thing.
Oppose on EV grounds, I'm not sure that a pre-jump image is the best for this particular page. Something in the middle of the jump would be more informative. Mattximus (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2019 at 07:05:07 (UTC)
Original – Yuri Gagarin was a Soviet cosmonaut, Air Force pilot, and aerospace engineer.Alt 1 Scratches and specks removed.
Reason
Yuri Gagarin was the first human to go to space and the first to orbit the Earth on 12 April 1961. This wonderful maniac then directed Vostok 1 on a descent course, ejected from the spacecraft, and landed using a parachute.
If that is not enough, this photo is also very rare. Gagarin died less than 7 years after his flight. He also managed to scar his handsome face two months after this photo was taken on 3 July 1961. So this photo is the best representation of his appearance during the notable time that we may ever get.
Support Alt 1 as nominator – --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should note, if you edited the original beyond the crop, you really should add yourself to the credits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 03:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I only tilted it 3° which is not much different than cropping it. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support This is a more artistically pleasing view, but I would be more supportive of a lateral view to demo the anatomy. Not sure how this works but can we do a set of all four (male/female, lateral/dorsal)? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It seems a little blurry to me, but others don't seem to see that, so it may just be me. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 23:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would be happy to vote support for a set containing the three other related images. Geoffroi (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Adam that improved sharpness would be preferable, but I think that this is good enough. --Pine(✉) 06:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I agree with Adam that this probably isn't perfect, but I like the composition, and this is surely a highly valuable image for ID purposes. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Purana-Kadavoor-2017-06-03-002.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 09:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think this makes a significant contribution to the article and it's an ordinary image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: I think it's, by far, the best image of him as an astronaut. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 13:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it is, but not FP quality for me. A training pic and poorly composed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion about the EV and composition, he was a pilot in training to become an astronaut. He died in a training accident. This photo shows him in action, in training, in his environment, in the middle of a bunch of training hardware. This image has good EV in the article and fits as good as any image can. Bammesk (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But his death was not related to this aspect of training. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A fine detailed image of the shikhara of a temple. (The title of the image wrongly calls it as gopuram. I have made a request to rename the image at commons.)
Oppose per MER-C.--Vulphere 14:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Along with the image issues detailed above, there is limited EV: this is not used at shikhara (where there are many better images of this sort of architectural construction) and it appears only in an overflow gallery of 19 images in Tungnath that did not make the cut for the 9 images in the main text of the overloaded-with-images article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2019 at 21:04:28 (UTC)
Original – South Korean young actor Byun Yo-han
Reason
As said previously, I think it's a high resolution of this young South Korean actor and I'd like to add two things: the background seems confusing for the Korean letters, but I was told by a contributor that it sets context for those who understand. Secondly, it got four votes and didn't reach quorum, that's why resubmitting, whether to be opposed or supported, that doesn't matter as everyone's opinion is respectable.
Support as nominator – LLcentury (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Unremarkable photo, distracting background. Target article is little more than a stub. Scant EV. Sca (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very ordinary, poor background. Notability. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll Support this again, but I don't think it's going to do very well after having literally ended a few days before the renomination. That's generally not liked. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 18:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't mind the shorter article, but I'm not sold on the composition or background. A very useful image, no doubt, but not really FP-standard. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this nomination is biased, this is the LGBT month and since I'm part of the community I needed to find a picture which seemed fine for FPC standards and I found this image of last surviving gay prisoner of Nazi Germany nice and tender.
Oppose I understand the sentiment, but this is just a snapshot. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree but profusely respect your position. --LLcentury (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I see Charles' point. I think the EV makes up for a average photo. He died in 2011, so the situation, especially as regards copyright, is now fixed in place for a fairly long while. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 11:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charlesjsharp, and also on technical grounds; overexposed, severely blown highlights. --Janke | Talk 12:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - blown highlights. MER-C 16:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification - @MER-C: what exactly is "blown highlights"?, I am not questioning it, I don't understand the concept in English, I speak Spanish. So to look carefully at "blown highlights" in potential future candidates. Kindest regards! --LLcentury (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Areas of the image which have a color value of (255, 255, 255). See Clipping (photography). MER-C 19:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Blown highlights" means that the lighter parts of the photo are overexposed - in this case, the pink shirt has turned white, with no details in the lighter parts. --Janke | Talk 19:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per summary of problems given by Charles and Janke. Geoffroi (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown highlights are quite distracting, making the picture seem unencyclopedic. Mattximus (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This just looks like a random family snapshot to me. I recognize the EV and likely unreplaceability but there needs to be some threshold for quality of the pictures themselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I missed the blown highlights, it sort of blends in with the bright shirt. There are better compositions of him in google search results, I doubt any of them have the license or the resolution. Bammesk (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2019 at 03:16:00 (UTC)
Original – Poster for Jules Massenet's La Navarraise, showing Emma Calvé in the role of Anita. The piece was originally performed in London, Calvé reprised her role from that production for this poster's performance, the French première at the Théâtre de l'Opéra-Comique on 3 October 1895
Reason
A fine image. Does have some of that unrecapturable "new technology is cool" thing - in this case, being able to print photos big, which I believe was very, very new at the time, and hence this probably looked far cooler back then. It's like Fred Ott's Sneeze or how Final Fantasy VII's low-poly 3D character models did not look like total crap at the time. Anyway, this has held up better than a lot of those, and I think Calvé's acting talent is a big reason for it: her pose and expression really sums up her role.
Support. As well as the EV for this performance itself, it appears to have historic value as an early large-format photographic poster. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: Honestly, the sources for photography in posters - that are found in a quick Google search - all seem to claim the practice started decades later. E.g. [1] claims it started in the 1920s Soviet Union, and [2] credits them and, I think, the Dadaist school. One suspects such people forgot that theatrical posters existed before film. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 02:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Poster for Jules Massenet's La Navarraise with Emma Calvé in the rôle of Anita.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 03:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not to be a pixel-peeper, but there's a weird red spot near the upper left corner of the wooden partition in the lower middle of the frame. Is it a defect or is there something there that really looks like that? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a dead pixel or two on the camera sensor, actually stuck pixel, and can be cloned out. Bammesk (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone do so, please? Then I can support. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose – there is a stitching defect on the bottom edge (on the right side), a bright triangular wedge, at around x,y=(9880,6525). It can be fixed. Bammesk (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moroder, please notice this comment. I'd be glad if you can fix it. Tomer T (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the stitching error. Thanks for the hint and the reviews --Moroder (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2019 at 06:15:21 (UTC)
Original – "USS Constitution fires a 17-gun salute near U.S. Coast Guard Base Boston during the ship's (2014) Independence Day underway demonstration in Boston Harbor."
Support as nominator – Pine(✉) 06:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Resolution isn't amazing, but the photo's good. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 19:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – I wish the buildings were less prominent. Bammesk (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lead in an FA. Could be a bit better artistically, but EV is there, and the quality is good enough. Geoffroi (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2019 at 08:48:50 (UTC)
Original – Poster for the première of Meyerbeer's Le pardon de Ploërmel, also called Dinorah
Reason
Posters tended to get better over time in the 19th century. For its time, this five-colour poster was pretty darn good. Plus, it's a première poster, which always adds a bit of EV. The opera has two names, which is kind of confusing, but, well, that can't be helped by us.
Comment – I am leaning to support. How about cropping the background a little? something similar to the right, perhaps? Bammesk (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC) . . . Support Alt 1, nice shot and more encyclopedic than the original. Bammesk (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Crop of alt 1 is fine by me and better. New version uploaded. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2019 at 22:46:40 (UTC)
Original – Nadar's Hermaphrodite, a photograph of a young intersex person (the term "Hermaphrodite" was the accepted term at the time)
Reason
The set this comes from is "probably the first medical photo-illustrations of a patient with intersex genitalia". I think this one is probably the most encyclopedic of them for covering the subject. Also, Pride month.
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 22:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are the other eight images available in high resolution? This would work equally well, if not better, as a set nomination. MER-C 19:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there's a few that get more graphic than this, and one in poorer condition. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 20:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and high EV. Geoffroi (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – high quality version of historically notable picture. I think a full set would be even better if it could be made available, but that's not a reason not to support this one. TSP (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I at least want to test the waters. Traditionally, NSFW pictures are much harder to get to pass. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 18:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Needs a fifth. However, this may probably never make the first page... --Janke | Talk 15:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Tomer T (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - an interesting frog, but the subject is overexposed/oversaturated (substantial clipping in the green channel) due to flash. MER-C 20:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Burying behavior is high EV, and I would guess that photographing them in their dark forest habitat would be hard or impossible without flash. Quality is fine for me here. Geoffroi (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose - per MER-C DannyS712 (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this an accurate depiction of its colour? If so, clipping in the green channel is expected. There are colours we can only approximate in standard RGB space, after all. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 16:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a photo in daylight: [3], there are other images in google search results. I agree with MER-C. Bammesk (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, think you're right. Pity, the basic photo is quite good. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 23:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Tomer T (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not up to modern standards re: panoramas - I'd expect at least 2x resolution and detail. There's also an oversharpening halo on the horizon. MER-C 20:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK here. --Yann (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. High quality and eye-catching photo of a notable subject, although the EV is more limited than the nomination would make it seem (it is only in a gallery in the first two articles and well down a long list of images in the other two). The clear best of 70+ images at Commons:Category:Interior of Sainte-Chapelle de Vincennes and (judging from the other images there as I haven't seen the place itself) well representative of the place. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per David Eppstein; it could perhaps be given more prominence in the article. TSP (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The rear stained glass is really the only weak point here, being slightly blurry, but it's a small element of a larger image, and can likely be better handled in separate images. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 16:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Interior of Sainte Chapelle, Vincennes 140308 1.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 13:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Donner Summit can still be scary in winter storms. I hadn't realized until reading the linked article that it's a different alignment than the original pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy of Muzeum w Bielsku-Białej - Zamek książąt Sułkowskich
Support as nominator – LLcentury (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – even though the corner are slightly unsharp. I see a clear 3D effect in the image, best in full-screen, not full-size (thus the soft corners really don't matter). --Janke | Talk 20:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2019 at 13:27:06 (UTC)
Original – The Finnish Lutheran cathedral of Helsinki, located in the centre of the city, was built from 1830-1852 as a tribute to the Grand Duke of Finland, Tsar Nicholas I of Russia.
Reason
High resolution composite image of an important Finish monument, adding to the articles
Support – Excellent resolution & sharpness. Perspective is as an onlooker sees it from the plaza, the building is situated on top of high stairs. --Janke | Talk 16:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support high-quality view of one of the iconic buildings of Helsinki. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...and replace the other image per Mattximus. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice detail. MER-C 19:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is another featured picture already. I think this image is better and should replace, but there is no point having two pictures of the exact same building featured. Mattximus (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will support this image but we must be sure to delist the other image. Mattximus (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of prefer the angle on the other image, as it gives a lot more detail as to depth. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 18:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ronald McNair, Guion Bluford, and Fred Gregory are respectively the 2nd, 1st, and 3rd African Americans to go to space and also the 3rd, 2nd, and 4th of African descent. They each were launched into space multiple times. McNair unfortunately died during the launch of his second mission, the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Bluford flew aboard Space Shuttles 4 times and Gregory 3 times.
Support – Bammesk (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC) Sidenote: not that it matters, there are tiny specs which can be removed if you choose to, at x,y=(718,2180), (2580,2102), (1203,3100), (580,2815), (2760,2800) relative to upper left corner.[reply]
Done. Thank you. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a much better than standard example of formal NASA portraits (as the subjects look to be actually happy to be there), and it has very strong EV. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good quality, attractive picture, ok EV, and the fact that she's just standing there looking cheerful is appropriate for someone who's notable as a presenter and sports journalist. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oppose – Definitely a toothy grin in this apparently promotional shot of a minor media celebrity. Fantastic EV – for Zahnärzte. – Sca (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, yea, toothy ;-E - but why do you call it promotional? I do concur that the article EV isn't so great, but it's a nice potrait, for a change... --Janke | Talk 16:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice portraits are a dime a dozen in PR-land. What's interesting is a face showing experience, character, etc. – Sca (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This nice portrait is free, and she looks beautiful and confident. Geoffroi 04:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not for the vast majority of Eng.-lang. readers. One must ask why this slick pic. of an Austrian sports journalist would be of interest to English-language Wiki's Main Page audience. Wieso ist sie für dieses Publikium interessant? – Sca (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't go by "vast majority of readers" and "interest of main page audience", we go by notability. Main page is the front face of an encyclopedia, not a journal. FP criteria defines EV in term of article usage, not main page use or suitability. Bammesk (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us prefer to think for ourselves, drawing on training and experience, rather than consult an institutional rule book assembled by anonymous persons of unknown qualifications. – Sca (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Anonymous persons of unknown qualifications" are called "editors", they build Wikipedia. From top of this page: "images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria." From FP criteria: "adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article." It doesn't say main page, it says article. Main page is the face of an encyclopedia, not a journal. Bammesk (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged to Bammesk – whose user page is so informative – for enlightening me on the fine points of editorial practice, and in only 80 words, too. – Sca (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
It feels promotional to me to highlight this not highly notable person with this not particularly unusual photograph of a heavily made up face. For a sports journalist, I would like to see them on the job, with some sort of a sports action in the background, and much less of posed-in-full-make-up feel. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we run on kerosene, sometimes even wood, but it could be worse :-) Bammesk (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:20180405 FIFA Women's World Cup Qualification AUT-SRB Kristina Inhof 850 6519.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 16:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a really valuable infobox image, but it just doesn't strike me as a professional-quality portrait. Compare it to the contemporary posed or journalistic photographs in the category linked above. It lacks the visual interest. This isn't about the subject (or, indeed, the photographer) so much as the framing, background, pose, expression... It just doesn't add up to a portrait that screams "Wikipedia's best work", in my view. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Josh. Compare with the candidate below, which is a very good and inspiring portrait. --Janke | Talk 18:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Josh. Geoffroi 21:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a beautiful shot of a beautiful place. One small concern is that Moraine lake is famous for the contrast between the greeny turquoise blue of its waters and the bluer blue of the sky. Here that's only barely visible around the margins of the lake, with the lake itself dominated by the same colors as the background. It's also a bit low-res by current standards and there's some odd blurring on the trees at the back side of the lake and purple chromatic aberration on the ridge above them. File:1 moraine lake pano 2019.jpg (the lead image of Moraine Lake) is technically better of the same place despite its noise. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, quality for fine for it's day. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – MER-C 16:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am biased, but think this photo is much better to illustrate the species. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be considered, but it is sufficiently different to the nominated image to not be an alternative. MER-C 14:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These images show very different colors of the animal. Why is that? That in itself is valuable. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose – harsh shadow, for lack of a better word "flat" composition. Bammesk (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2019 at 13:25:06 (UTC)
Original – Cattle tyrant (Machetornis rixosa) perching on a capybara (Hydrochoeris hydrochaeris), in the Pantanal, Brazil. It is said to have a cleaning symbiosis with the mammal.
Reason
High quality large image. FP on Commons. Adds value to article.
Support No idea why this is so underreviewed. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 04:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I think it is kinda blurry on the bird's head and the capybara's eyes. We already have an FP of the behaviour albeit with a different bird. I don't think this is Charles' best work but I am not a photographer so I am not one to judge. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The blank stare, the generic backdrop, the unlikely green suit and maroon tie... this looks like the high school yearbook photo of someone who went back to school 20 years later. There's nothing in it to suggest that he walked on the moon. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Eppstein. Lacks EV regarding the career for which the subject was known. In addition, to my eye the facial colors appear oversaturated. – Sca (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind the dated clothing, it's a good picture and reminds me of the time period in which it was taken. Mattximus (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK for me. – Yann (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I prefer this version, the extra space somehow takes too much attention away from him! I did read the edit summary in the article's revision history, but still. If this doesn't pass I would support the tighter crop. Bammesk (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good to me. Mattximus (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – criteria says: "helps readers to understand an article". There isn't much to understand in first article. But it depicts variation among 6 species in the second article. Bammesk (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Under-represented part of the world, endangered species. While the article is a stub, having a featured picture may motivate someone to work on it! Josh Milburn (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Golden-eyed tree frog (Agalychnis annae).jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 20:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't really see any advantage to including all 3 images together. The second image works fine to illustrate the hummingbird feeding. The other two images don't add any useful additional information. Kaldari (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The third image is crucial Kaldari to demonstrate how the hummingbird stretches its body to pierce the flower. Charlesjsharp (talk)
Support – It is so strange how she backs into the spot in #1 and punches the flower in #3. How long did she stay after #3 with her beak in the flower, Charlesjsharp? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk • contribs) 22:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - HDR processing should be redone such that the output is about 10% darker. As is, the image is functionally overexposed with significant glare and lost detail in the alter and ceiling, spoiling what would otherwise have been an excellent photo. MER-C 17:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, my first impression was: slightly overexposed. I support adjusting it or uploading an adjusted version as a separate file. Bammesk (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Needs to be done from RAW for best results. @Poco a poco: please consider editing. MER-C 17:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've applied some changes reducing highlights and improving the detail. The church was indeed inside overwhelming bright, I don't know to which extend it would be right to ignore that and "cool" it so that all details are visible. Apart from the fact that this image is FP and POTY on Commons, a complete rework is not really aligned with the Commons guidelines. Poco2 18:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also, @MER-C:: You should probably review your request. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 04:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. It's a gorgeous photo, but there's still too much overexposure, not just in the ceiling but in the flat vertical surfaces of the altarpiece, for me to be comfortable listing it as FP. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm bothered about the distortion highlighted in the light on the right. Also please explain where the educational value lies. It's not used in the article on the architect, nor in explaining this sort of design. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, EV isn't educational value, but encyclopedic value - quite a different thing. Support. --Janke | Talk 15:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Espresso Addict, just to reply in more detail . . . typically infobox images 1- depict the subject of the article, 2- do so better than other images, so infobox images are usually considered to meet the EV requirement portion of the FP criteria. This has been my experience here at FP nominations, I am not saying it is right or wrong (although I usually agree). The FP criteria doesn't define EV in much detail, and reviewers often disagree about "significant EV". . . . About this nom: the article is about the station and the photo depicts it, and it relates to the text: glass and steel curves, two platforms on left, post 2016 renovation. About the light fixture distortion: it is a limitation (of flattening a real life spherical canvas to a 2D canvas) and shows in wide angle shots [4], [5], [6] and the heads of the two side statues in this shot (visible at full size, not full screen). Bammesk (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks for the nom. This is an amazing railway station, considered one of the finest in the country. My photo is a very similar view to the one on the cover of Britain's 100 Best Railway Stations by Simon Jenkins. -- Colin°Talk 11:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I kind of wish it was just a little wider so that you could have a thin band of blue sky at the top instead of cutting into the roof support beam. But it's a good shot regardless. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Wemyss Bay railway station concourse 2018-08-25 2.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 14:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2019 at 17:28:17 (UTC)
Original – A Socata TBM 900 photographed in flight. The photo was taken in 2015 during the EAA AirVenture Oshkosh event. It was shot mid-air from a Beechcraft A36 Bonanza.
Reason
Doing very well on Commons FPC at the moment. Crisp sharpness. The only gripe is the rather tight crop, but that doesn't seem to be much of a big deal.
Support as nominator – --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – How about nominating a three-picture set imcluding Armstrong & Aldrin, too - should be possible? --Janke | Talk 21:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The quality for Armstrong's is just not good enough.[7][8] I am arguing with the NASA Image Library via email to convince them to re-scan it. I am working on restoring the one for Aldrin now. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just for info: there is a group picture here. Bammesk (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I used that group photo as inspiration for a scene in a 2.5 minute cartoon film I made as a teenager in 1969: [9] ;-) --Janke | Talk 10:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The DOF-zoom at 2:12 and the phone inside the ship! very cool :-) Bammesk (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Janke, was there any reason this should not be featured? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2019 at 15:47:41 (UTC)
Original – Physical map of the world as of 2016 (SVG)
Reason
This is the highest quality map of the world on Wikipedia. It is an actual SVG map, with vector borders and labels. The elevation illustration, although rasterized, is high resolution.
Support as nominator – Kaldari (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – too much, and too little at the same time. Viewing the whole, all those names are distracting, while in a close-up look, there's not enough info, and the font is too large. --Janke | Talk 21:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you want a dynamically-generated scaling map like Google Maps or OpenStreetMap. Unfortunately, static maps cannot change their information density or font size based on the zoom level, so I'm not really sure how your feedback would be actionable. Kaldari (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I am leaning to support. I don't see big improvements and I think any change will be good and bad depending on who's looking at it. Also, SVGs, fonts, browsers, and operating systems don't always behave well, this coming from CIA probably displays well on most computer platforms. Bammesk (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Any map can be better and different depending on what we want from it. I think this does a good job in the 3 articles listed above. Bammesk (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great at full size, but doesn't thumbnail particularly well. Consider nominating on Commons. MER-C 17:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do any maps thumbnail well? Kaldari (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2019 at 10:15:29 (UTC)
Original – Three stained-glass windows in the Cathedral of Our Lady, Antwerp. From left to right: Our Lady of Stekske, by Stalins & Janssens, 1878; Saint Ursula and Saint Gaspar, by E. Didron, 1873; and Dedication of the statue of Our Lady of Lourdes by arcebishop Deschamps, by Stalins & Janssens, 1885
Reason
High quality depiction of well-known stained-glass windows in Antwerp's cathedral, adding to the article
Comment – the tops are noticeably brighter than the bottoms, and look somewhat overexposed (especially the right window). The colors are vivid, I am no expert but I think that's Ok for 1870s. Good EV. Bammesk (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lighting is often unavoidable: It really depends on what's outside of the cathedral. If it's in a built-up area, getting perfect lighting can be impossible. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 11:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – thanks I wasn't sure, the infobox image shows it. The overexposure isn't much. Bammesk (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC) . . . I changed from "support" to "weak support", the article needs to say more about the stained-glass windows. I found some links but not a whole lot. I made a note on the article's talk page. Bammesk (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2019 at 07:13:36 (UTC)
Original – Nell Mercer, one of the women arrested as part of the Silent Sentinels protest for women's suffrage
Reason
A fine image of a fairly interesting suffragette, albeit one who really needs an article expansion. It's probably worth pointing out that fade-out at the bottom was a very 1910s-1920s style thing.
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 07:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice portrait. --Yann (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - doesn't technically meet the resolution criteria, but I'll look the other way. MER-C 11:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, though I don't think we're missing any actual detail. The film grain likely limits it enough that this is around the maximum actual resolution. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 11:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. MER-C 14:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – Resolution aside (it's a century-old photo), support for a face with character – but 'weak' due to blurring of bottom of frame, and because her target article is a stub. Good EV, tho. – Sca (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – weak article per Sca. Bammesk (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Resolution can be improved with a higher-quality scan of the original, I suppose, but this is sufficient. Per nominator, the blurring at the bottom is a feature, I suppose — as well as illustrating the subject of the portrait, this image illustrates a now-largely-forgotten aspect of artistic photography of the period. Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I really like the picture, but I do wonder about the EV of a picture of her aged 16-7. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: Double checking the LoC, I see that 1910 should have been 1910s. Oops. That's kind of a big difference. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 13:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. That does make a difference! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I'd lose 2-5 px on the top and left as there's some lighter edges poking in. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 14:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: I looked at the image at 200%, and I can't see what need to be removed. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's easiest to see against a black background. Try expanding the canvas size 10px or so, then look at the top abd left edges. It's not the whole way down, but there's quite a bit Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 11:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment I had to struggle to find this image in the main article. Could it be moved to the lead image? If not I don't see the EV. Mattximus (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do think a prominent template usage, that puts it near the top of a lot of articles shouldn't be sneezed at. Although this one is a little smaller than some. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 17:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead image might warrant a FPC on its own. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2019 at 14:16:47 (UTC)
Original – A male attacus taprobanis, a moth of Saturniidae family. It is native to southern India and Sri Lanka. The wingspan of male is about 180-200 mm.
Reason
Another of Jeevan Jose's excellently detailed insect images.
As you may know, the 100th anniversary of suffrage in the United States is next year. That means preparing for it is not a bad idea. Feickert has a fairly well-developed biography... but her image looked like this: [10] - That's... not ideal. I think it's a very nice photo of its type, and certainly does the fade better than Nell Mercer. Downside is the composition kind of needs a little space around it. It's something around 500 dpi by my figuring, so pretty good resolution, even if it's not amazing size otherwise.
Support - is the white patch near the neck damage? It doesn't seem natural. MER-C 12:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean right of it, in the background? Can you mark it on the Commons annotator? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 13:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, where the is an indent in the dark shading. MER-C 17:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a second look. My first impression was intended, but... Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 00:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Geoffroi, Bammesk, J Milburn, MER-C, and Vulphere: Per MER-C's comment, I re-evaluated it, and decided it was damage, probably worn down by fingerprints, and fixed it. Also made some minor fixes to the face to deal with some minor light spots. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 06:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2019 at 23:27:22 (UTC)
Original – Metal slinky
Reason
This is a Commons FP of the Slinky toy that's currently used prominently at the Slinky article. It demonstrates the Slinky's nature as a pre-compressed spring, its ability to sit with both ends on the floor, and its typical appearance at rest. This was nominated for FP 13½ years ago (see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Spiral), but it failed because it wasn't then in a high-EV use and because some voters thought it wasn't a particularly appealing image. It now has a use with high EV, and images with anything less than high quality can't become FPs on Commons, I think we need not worry about concerns that its general quality is poor.
Comment – there is no wow factor in this particular photo, looks boring. May be a more interesting composition? showing it spanning 2 elevations, or a colorful slinky, or etc. Bammesk (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do think a metal slinky is a good thing to photograph, but the angle (kind of looking down oddly) and the extreme vignetting of the background that... I don't think this is FP. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 06:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator Some more restoration was done, which I think was not taken into account during last nomination. – Yann (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support either, I prefer the original greyscale nom, I think it works better in this case. Bammesk (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If this was a modern photo I'd complain that it's too soft, but that's more than made up for by the historic value of the subject and photographer. We actually have quite a few photos of Bernhardt by Nadar but this one is a good choice of composition and in much better quality than the others. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support sepia version. I think this is more true to the original than the originally-nominated grayscale version. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support sepia version. MER-C 11:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I like the picture, but it's not obvious that it's adding a huge amount to the various articles in which it is used. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the one hand, it's a brilliant restoration. On the other, I do think the original colours (File:Nadar, Sarah Bernhardt - Getty Museum.jpg) make the details pop a lot more, especially the hair/background distinction, and I'm really, really not a fan of arbitrary conversion to greyscale of images that weren't originally. I don't suppose you saved a copy of the restoration before levels and saturation? As it is, I think I'm kind of leaning neutral. I certainly do not want to oppose it. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 15:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: I usually correct the levels and the saturation before doing the restoration. And what make you say that the original is not greyscale? To me, the only colors there is the frame. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's sepia. There's two or three chemical processes that can be used, one gives more brownish tones, the other the more almost blue-balanced tones of modern greyscale. This appears to be one of the browner-toned ones. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 18:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Equestrian Portrait of Cornelis (1639–1680) and Michiel Pompe van Meerdervoort (1638–1653) with Their Tutor and Coachman ("Starting for the Hunt") MET DP146442.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 20:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2019 at 03:55:32 (UTC)
Original – Chemist Henry Taube photographed in laboratory, circa 1983.
Reason
1983 Noble prize winner in chemistry Henry Taube in what appears to be a chemistry laboratory, circa 1983. The photo is a bit grainy which is not unusual for some black and white photos or films in 1980s.
Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 03:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very grainy, but good. Mind if I restore it a bit? There's some obvious damage here and there, and SMS Arcona isn't going to be done anytime soon. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 06:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, I intended to fix those spots (I should've said so when I nominated), I uploaded a touched up version. Thanks for the review. Bammesk (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I was wrong about Arcona anyway! Support, though you missed a black mark right in the middle of the very top of the image, and a white line at the bottom, on the cupboard door right of his leg. I shan't hold you to my "remove that single-pixel spot" standards, unless you really want to be, in which case I'll annotate the image. There's about... a dozen? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 02:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the "black mark" and "white line", annotating would be great, I'll be happy to improve it. Bammesk (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Image cache error. You got it, and a lot of the other stuff I was going to note. I'll note anything that's ACTUALLY still there. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 03:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found one thing, and it is ridiculously trivial. Great work, sorry about the cache error! Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 03:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC
Done. At first I thought it was part of the pen lid, but it isn't. The cache thing happens to all of us! Bammesk (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fun fact: If you mirror the image, both the typed and hand-written text on that is clearly readable, thanks to some impressive bleedthrough. Good for documenting the image, bad for... everything else.
Support Very useful. I can think many more use cases. Adam Cuerden, I would add the text removed in the description and clean up the licensing as well; you only need ((PD-US)) and ((PD-Japan-oldphoto)), because this photo was taken before 1924 (relevant to U.S. and Japan PD) and Ammen Farenholt died in 1956 (relevant to Japan PD). --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Yann (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2019 at 18:11:14 (UTC)
Original – A Japanese white-eye at Tennōji Park in Osaka.Alternative 1Alternative 2
Reason
Bird photographed with sufficient detail to see the pollen coating the beak. Unanimously featured on Commons last year. I've also added the image that I replaced it with, also an FP on Commons, as an alternative.
Support as nominator, prefer Alt 2 – MER-C 18:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1 or Alt 2 – the tail is out of focus in the Original. I think the article is large enough for both images. The flowers look good. Bammesk (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No preference for either version. Bammesk (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt 1 or 2, prefer 2.Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 15:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like that one better than the other two. @Bammesk and Adam Cuerden: second alternative added, please reconsider. MER-C 18:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think you can suggest alternatives that are not in the Wikipedia article. Alternatives should be variants of the original. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first alternative was in the infobox before I replaced the original. I believe all three images are functionally the same and expect the winner to be used. MER-C 12:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original. Distracting background in Alt 2. –Yann (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt 2.--Vulphere 09:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Japanese white-eye at Tennōji Park in Osaka, January 2016 III.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 19:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2019 at 01:10:53 (UTC)
Original – Scientist Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Noble prize winner and president of the Royal Society, portrait 2015.
Reason
2009 Noble prize winner in chemistry Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, and the current president of the Royal Society. Portrait 2015. The background is not ideal, but I hope his vivid smile and his article make up for it. It looks good technically.
Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Background seems pretty neutral. It's a little bit standard-portrait-photography, but it's good. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 03:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - High quality portrait of a significant living person; the sort of thing we should be encouraging. TSP (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Mrs. Lillian Ascough, chairman of the Connecticut branch of the Woman's Party.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 07:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Tomer T (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A high-quality shot of an iconic building of the Copenhagen riverfront, timed for dramatic lighting. The exposure has caused some of the street-level lighting to balloon a little, but I don't think that's a significant problem. I'm not entirely sure about the overall composition, though — I think it would be improved by cropping a little of the water from the bottom. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The wide composition would weak EV a bit but that species is mentioned explicitly as a polinator in Drimia maritima. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJ Harrison (talk • contribs)
Oppose Compostion and depth of field. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wouldn't mind a little more depth of field, but macro shots of a living animal in the wild are difficult. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 15:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – JJ Harrison, there are several spots on the bokeh, mostly on upper right side, looks like a dirty lens! or something like that. I don't know if they should be removed. I yield to the photographer. Bammesk (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can edit it if JJ wants me to, but I Support either way. It's very minor at worst. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 14:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy if you want to clone them out. I think it's a dirty sensor - stuff on the lens usually doesn't show up in the photo and instead results in a loss in contrast. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – MER-C 10:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ConditionalSupport – the top border (right side) needs some fixing, there is a strip of black pixels. Bammesk (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dllu:: please fix these stitching errors. MER-C 15:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bammesk A fix was uploaded by the creator, could you check it out, and update your !vote? Regards, ArmbrustTheHomunculus 07:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Looks waaaaay to light for a night photo, it has an "over-HDR" look. --Janke | Talk 06:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a night photo, there is daylight from left hitting the high-rise buildings. It is a dusk photo with a long exposure time (car headlights), maybe slightly overexposed (in some electric lit areas) which is normal for low light situations. I think it looks fine for a dusk photo. Bammesk (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oppose – To my eye, there's something unreal about the colors in the lighted area in the foreground. Sca (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Yann (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Looks oversaturated and maybe too saturation-boosted to me. All the foreground lawns have been turned into astroturf. The less-saturated and less-contrasty area around Saint Mary's Cathedral are more what I'd expect this time of evening to actually look like. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
_il._07_Chesma_-_Restoration,_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
_-_Restoration.jpg)
,_parque_nacional_Kruger,_Sud%C3%A1frica,_2018-07-25,_DD_56.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.gif)
_on_Capybara.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Original – Scintillant hummingbird (Selasphorus scintilla) female feeding on Abutilon sp. In the Mount Totumas cloud forest, Panama; 1 of 3
2 of 3 feeding on Abutilon sp.
3 of 3 piercing the flower_female_in_flight_1.jpg)
_female_in_flight_2.jpg)
_female_in_flight_3.jpg)
_on_capybara_(Hydrochoeris_hydrochaeris).JPG){kind=link}
![[4]](/en/File:King%27s_College_London_Chapel_2,_London_-_Diliff.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](/en/File:Portsmouth_Cathedral_Choir,_Portsmouth,_Hampshire,_UK_-_Diliff.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](/en/File:Exeter_Cathedral_Quire,_Exeter,_UK_-_Diliff.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
_and_Michiel_Pompe_van_Meerdervoort_(1638%E2%80%931653)_with_Their_Tutor_and_Coachman_(%22Starting_for_the_Hunt%22)_MET_DP146442.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
![[11]](/en/File:VST_image_of_the_spectacular_star-forming_region_Messier_17_(Omega_Nebula).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)