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

Wochenspruch der NSDAP, 7 September 1941

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2020 at 05:13:22 (UTC)

Reason

This image has a very high encyclopedic value in illustrating the best known quote from Hitler's speeches. I've restored it as best I can, starting with this.

Articles in which this image appears

Hitler's prophecy, Political views of Adolf Hitler

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Literary illustrations

Creator

Unknown Nazi propagandist, restored by Buidhe

• Support as nominator – (t · c) buidhe 05:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't know about others here, but I'm uncomfortable directly reproducing Nazi anti-Jew propaganda here and then calling it encyclopedic because it illustrates Nazi thought. In what meaningful way is that distinguishable from reproducing Nazi anti-Jew propaganda for the sake of promulgating Nazi anti-Jew propaganda? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have been entire books written about Nazi propaganda, such as Jeffrey Herf's book The Jewish Enemy, which include reproductions to illustrate. Personally, I think that in order to learn from the post it should be exposed and studied. We already featured other Nazi propaganda images such as File:Bolschewismus ohne Maske2.jpg. (t · c) buidhe 06:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to say straight out that I appreciate Buidhe's work, and don't think that they have any negative intent in doing this other than educating about World War II. I need to say that now, because I'm going to be talking about problems I have with this image, and I don't want them being applied to Buidhe.

We've had Nazi propoganda before, but those have been illustrations. Something like File:Bolschewismus_ohne_Maske2.jpg is visual. It serves a purpose that can't be simply portrayed in words. But the one currently being presented is text from Hitler, in an attractive font **with no illustrations other than a swastika**

I'm reminded less of the Nazi propoganda poster than the Kronheim Bible verse prints I did a few years ago, like File:Joseph Martin Kronheim - The Sunday at Home 1880 - Revelation 22-17.jpg (though even that one has more actual artwork than this image).

So, does this have encyclopedic value? Very little. It's hard to see how it adds much more than quoting the text itself would do.

In the featured article W. S. Gilbert, some key quotes are put off to one side using blue boxes. Presuming this is worth a pullquote, does the artistic portrayal of it, with good font choices and such add to its value, or is it more likely that spreading this via the main page would give anti-Semites something to hang on their walls, without adding to the discussion.

Again, I don't for a moment think this is Buidhe's intent, but we need to balance educational value, artistry, and possible harms. If our Psalm 23 featured picture doesn't add much to Psalm 23 other than looking pretty, the lack of EV is mitigated by artistry, and, given the lack of any real harm, that's really not much of a problem at all (We'll ignore some other EV that image has for now). If people want to print it out and put it on their walls, y'know what, go ahead. Knock yourself out. But if our illustration of a Hitler's prophecy quote doesn't do much more than look pretty... Artistry just isn't enough to balance the possible harms. We need educational value for that, that's unique to the image, not the quote. And if people print it out and put it on their walls, that's... probably not something we want to encourage. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.2% of all FPs} 06:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly respect that point of view. I did write an entire article which puts it in appropriate context, and am trying to get it to FA. I think that the image does have a high encyclopedic value in showing how Hitler's words were valorized and venerated, exactly as if they were scripture! Today's politicians at least in my country do not do this at all. I thought it would be nice to have a featured picture to go with the article but if not, so be it. (t · c) buidhe 06:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got hit by an edit conflict while expanding my point above, but... I definitely appreciate your work on that. And if it were a more notable publication, or a widely-distributed poster, or something like that, I think the encyclopedic value could push above any "making it more attractive in appearance" issues. A Neo-Nazi could print our other examples of Nazi propoganda, after all, but learning the techniques of such anti-Semitism is valuable. But I'm not seeing the EV here, so my doubts are increased. I'm just not sure that one page of one issue of a newspaper is enough when the image isn't even in the newspaper's page, and that they published it doesn't seem (at the moment) to be particularly significant. Is there more EV than I'm seeing? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.2% of all FPs} 07:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wochenspruch der NSDAP article is not well developed, however different historians have written about its importance. This issue was sent to all of the Nazi Party's local branches^[1] and displayed promiently in Berlin^[2] and "in every town and village".^[3] (t · c) buidhe 07:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Request withdrawn clearly there is not going to be consensus to promote. (t · c) buidhe 07:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey vulture

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2020 at 09:32:15 (UTC)

Reason

High quality large image. FP on Commons. Most valuable image even though not in infobox (don’t normally have flight images in infobox).

Articles in which this image appears

Turkey vulture

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support - please reduce the CA/weird fringing. MER-C 19:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done thanks Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 06:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support || DreamSparrow ^Chat 18:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) in flight.JPG --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marabou stork head

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2020 at 16:53:49 (UTC)

Reason

High quality large image. FP on Commons. Adds value to article as although not info box image being a portrait of its head, the head is the key feature of one of Africa’s ‘ugly five’

Articles in which this image appears

Marabou stork

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 19:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Andrei (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support || DreamSparrow ^Chat 16:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 06:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Kaldari (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great work. --Gnosis (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Marabou stork (Leptoptilos crumenifer) head.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camille Pissarro - Boulevard Montmartre, Spring

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2020 at 09:34:39 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality and EV, the best version available as it was sold to a private collection.

Articles in which this image appears

Le Boulevard de Montmartre, Matinée de Printemps

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Camille Pissarro

• Support as nominator – Andrei (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are 5 versions of this painting (plus one nighttime version) - which one is "worthiest" of FP? See [3]. --Janke | Talk 10:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Only the nominated version has its own article, which is very specific and has the provenance for this painting. I corrected the nomination to include the link. --Andrei (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – but the file size went from 3.92 MB to 2.34 MB after a minor crop. Less lossy crops can be done, for example here. Bammesk (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! I do not use any tools and extract images directly from Google. They use some kind of algorithm to improve images with time. As a rule, they fix the color scheme to make it more natural but also reduce the size from time to time. Thank you Adam for restoring the original, I think 1px is not worth it. --Andrei (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 21:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 16:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Camille Pissarro - Boulevard Montmartre, Spring - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Jacobs

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2020 at 22:35:37 (UTC)

Reason

Only documented formal photo of Harriet Jacobs, carefully restored. There are one or two others floating around on the internet, but there's a reliable source noting this as the only known formal portrait of her, and I don't see any sources for the others, so I'm inclined to doubt. (Source for this one: [4])

Articles in which this image appears

Harriet Jacobs, et al

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers

Creator

C.M.Gilbert, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 22:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 16:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support || DreamSparrow ^Chat 17:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Kaldari (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ©Geni (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good photo with excellent EV Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Gilbert Studios photograph of Harriet Jacobs.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Panther chameleon male

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2020 at 10:59:09 (UTC)

Reason

High quality large image. FP on Commons. Illustrates article well.

Articles in which this image appears

Panther chameleon

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• We already have a FP of a male here, it was promoted last year. But the nom image is much sharper. I suggest putting the existing FP up for a delist vote first, or concurrently. Oppose as is, i.e. having two images of a male. Bammesk (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would normally agree, but this is a very special case Bammesk There is doubt about the number of possible subspecies of Furcifer pardalis. There may even be as many as fourteen different species. The males are sometimes described as colour morphs or forms. At the moment, the safest definition is to define locale. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• These have the same color pattern, green with dark vertical stripes and one white horizontal stripe. The only difference is the brown spots on the face, nothing major, the article text doesn't go into facial details so I don't see EV for two FPs. Sorry but my suggestion stands. Bammesk (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Request withdrawn Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nile monitor

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2020 at 15:27:50 (UTC)

Reason

High quality large image. FP on Commons. Illustrates article well.

Articles in which this image appears

Nile monitor

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – sorry but a full body photo, like the one in the infobox, has more EV. Bammesk (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I somewhat agree this is poorly used. There's a description of its facial anatomy later in the article. With a suitable caption (and possibly labels) EV would be drastically increased.Your photography is clearlg better than the lead image, but the angle of the head is similar to the lead image, which also has the rest of the body, so it's a little redundant where it is now, and there's no caption to explain it where it is now.

This isn't a simple case like male/female/juvenile or multiple morphs where the EV needs a mere word under it. A zoom in on one feature needs to be next to discussion of that feature. Since there are some discussions of head anatomy, if they're expanded slightly, grouped together, and this image is put next to them, suitably captioned, it's an easy FP, especially if labelled. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.2% of all FPs} 19:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Adam's comments above. I think a head shot (of an animal) needs either sufficient EV (as elaborated by Adam) or significant wow factor. In the article, I see brief mentions of jaw, teeth (not depicted), and the nostril placement. Not sufficient enough IMO to favor it over a full body shot. My vote could be different if I saw significant wow factor, but wow factor is a subjective thing and I don't see enough of it, sorry, (the angled composition and foreground shadow don't work for me, sorry). With all of that said, this is still an excellent photo and we are lucky to have it in en-WP. Bammesk (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Request withdrawn Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

White-lined tanager (Tachyphonus rufus) female

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2020 at 14:20:45 (UTC)

Reason

High quality large image. FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

White-lined tanager, Tachyphonus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – but how about a slight crop on top? see suggestion crop on right. I think the extra space takes the focus away from the bird. I know this is FP on Commons and you can do a CSS crop in the article, but still, I find the top distracting. Bammesk (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As you knw, I'm fond of rule of thirds, but have uploaded crop as you suggest Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a support vote regardless. Just for the record, I had suggested 10% crop from the top. Bammesk (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Request withdrawn Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old Royal Naval College

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2020 at 01:12:53 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image of the subject.

Articles in which this image appears

Old Royal Naval College, Greenwich Hospital, Architecture of London

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Colin

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 16:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support || DreamSparrow ^Chat 17:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 10:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One is reminded of the Soldier in White, who sees everything twice. – Sca (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Old Royal Naval College 2017-08-06.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Added image to Places/Panorama instead. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battleship Row

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2020 at 14:53:14 (UTC)

Reason

High quality with an encyclopedic value

Articles in which this image appears

Battleship Row, Attack on Pearl Harbor, USS West Virginia (BB-48), 6+ others

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War II

Creator

Imperial Japanese Navy

• Support as nominator – TheFreeWorld (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I checked the original - the TIFF, which should really have been uploaded to Commons as well - and the levels adjustment seems to have blown out the highlights - losing detail in the large explosion near the middle, and turning some subtle smoke and mist around the plane right of that into something that visually dominates, which isn't in the original - it also emphasised the graininess unnecessarily. It's not the best photo, but could still be valuable despite that, but I think we can ask for the best version of this photo. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 06:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hexagon pool

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2020 at 10:09:19 (UTC)

Reason

Photo of great quality, illustrates the article in a good way. The entire pool and its source are seen, as well as unusual columns.

Articles in which this image appears

Hexagon pool

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Ziko323

• Support as nominator – Andrei (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think I'd somewhat prefer the three images in the article as a set. Each provides information the others don't. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 10:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Nice pic., but article at 222 words is little more than a stub. – Sca (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and doesn't show hexagons well. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – nom image is noisy, see foreground at full size, looks like overly sharpened. Bammesk (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Komodo dragons fighting

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2020 at 10:56:48 (UTC)

Reason

High quality large image. FP on Commons. Illustrates article well. Infobox image is FP, but I think World’s largest reptile can support two FPs.

Articles in which this image appears

Komodo dragon

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 13:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support || DreamSparrow ^Chat 17:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thought I had voted, honestly. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.2% of all FPs} 09:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Harsh lighting but action makes up for it.©Geni (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Komodo dragons (Varanus komodoensis) fighting.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nyström's jultomte

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2020 at 15:17:04 (UTC)

Reason

A lovely illustration by Jenny Nyström, who popularised the use of these jultomte as a Christmas tradition. Because there's no point getting our Christmas FPs out too near Christmas if we want them to run on Christmas. The filename uses the Norwegian spelling of Nyström's name, since it comes from the National Library of Norway. Feel free to point out any missed damage. It's a big file, and, while I've been diligent, it's always possible some was missed.

Articles in which this image appears

Jenny Nyström, Nisse (folklore)

FP category for this image

Arguable, but I'd say Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Religion and mythology should win out over Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others.

Creator

Jenny Nyström, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 15:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – nice restoration. Bammesk (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Iconic. Interesting point: This looks to be printed in at least 7 colors, maybe more. The raster screen is hand-made - a lost art! --Janke | Talk 20:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I make eight: yellow, brown, blue, cyan, red, peach, grey, black. The greens and oranges are combinations. That's actually not too far off modern standards in a way. Might be a second grey. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.2% of all FPs} 01:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some inkjets use 6 or more colors - but standard lithography is just CMYK these days. What fascinates me is that this example shows hand-made half-toning screens. --Janke | Talk 08:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. MER-C 13:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support || DreamSparrow ^Chat 17:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support©Geni (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Julemotiv tegnet av Jenny Nystrøm (24207693358).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wochenspruch der NSDAP 11 January 1943

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2020 at 10:49:13 (UTC)

Reason

a striking image, high resolution and restored to remove aging damage, with high encyclopedic value in demonstrating the tactics of Nazi propaganda in glamorizing Nazi leaders

Articles in which this image appears

Wochenspruch der NSDAP, Nazi propaganda, Themes in Nazi propaganda

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War II

Creator

Werner von Axster-Heudtlass, restored and uploaded by Buidhe

• Support as nominator – (t · c) buidhe 10:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this passes, it should be listed at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused given this is literal Nazi propaganda. It's an interesting example of this, given that it depicts the bloated, lazy and incompetent Goring as a fit man of action. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also note that I can't support this nomination on principle given that it's propaganda for one of the most loathsome regimes in history and an ideology which still commands a following among racists and bigots - this this was to become a FP it could lead to a perception that Wikipedia approves of this kind of ideology. I appreciate that the motivation for improving this image is to illustrate what the highly effective propaganda tactics used by the Nazis looked like, and this is a much less loathsome example of their work than anti-Semitic and similar posters so there is genuine EV. An option for a FP, and I'm not sure how it could be executed, would be an image combining this poster with a photo of what Goring actually looked like at the time to illustrate how ludicrous and manipulative the poster is. Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Propaganda art is OK in an article about it, but not for FP. --Janke | Talk 12:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case, this fails criterium #3 - this is not among Wikipedia's "best work"... --Janke | Talk 17:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – This pathetic preposterous piece of crap propaganda has zero minimal EV for Eng.-lang. readers, and does not belong on the Main Page. Wegwerfen. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imagine if you spent hours restoring a historically valuable artwork, only to have it dismissed as a "pathetic piece of crap"? The image is used in three articles, so how does it have "zero EV"? (t · c) buidhe 13:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've softened my comments above, but as a lifelong student of the rise of Nazism and attendant topics I see scant EV in a blatantly hagiographic, and inept, depiction of one of modern history's most contemptible figures. – Sca (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, it is also being promoted on the Commons right now, with much more votes in favor. --165.225.207.71 (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment enwp has already featured Nazi propaganda images (such as File:Bolschewismus ohne Maske2.jpg). It is probably too much to expect but that all opposes should be based on featured picture criteria, which doesn't include disapproving of the image or its message. (t · c) buidhe 13:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not the best phrasing you could have chosen... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 23:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The actual quote is, in context, evidence for the German public knowing about the Holocaust, as well as a reference to it. While Nazi propoganda, this image serves a useful educational purpose in what it admits to. Honestly, I think Sca and Janke aren't considering the value of admissions from Nazis in their propoganda that can be useful for disproving later lies. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 23:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you note what I said: "Propaganda art is OK in an article about it"... As such, having this image on the front page would not entice viewers to read the article - it lacks the "wow" I expect from all FPs. --Janke | Talk 06:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. – Sca (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am really uneasy about putting Nazi propaganda on Wikipedia's front page. It is certainly educational, but... well, I think we should discuss the text blurb that will accompany this. Is it already drafted? The current caption here will need some changes, for example, we don't list sources/external links like this on the Main Page, do we? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. Dziękuję. – Sca (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I never said I wanted it on the main page, actually I support Nick-D's suggestion that it should go on the list of featured images unsuitable for the main page. (t · c) buidhe 19:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• FPs are by definition eligible for the MP. If we want ban this prospective FP from the MP, why promote it as an FP at all? – Sca (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – There is currently a debate [5] (or effort) in the U.S. on removing statues of confederate icons from public parks and squares and placing them in museums (or other suitable places). I think certain statues do belong in museums, not in public squares. I see somewhat of a similarity between that debate and this nom. Should images like this be confined to article space, or should they be given additional visibility outside of article space? My answer is: confined to article space. Bammesk (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. Posting images of Nazi bigwigs or other despicable historical characters on the Main Page could be misconstrued as WP support/endorsement of their deeds or blather. – Sca (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Point of order: We do that all the time. Template:POTD/2007-12-14, Template:POTD/2017-01-20 (with a positive spin, no less), Template:POTD/2018-03-22 (watch how it glosses right past that slave ownership!), Template:POTD/2010-04-14. By the way, I'm really annoyed by the middle two, as they're images I did to promote history, that got turned into positive portrayals. I'd suggest that we put this up for a suitably distant day and write the description right away if we do it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 15:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We shouldn't. Let them read about the topics in the multitudinous relevant articles. (And BTW, Lee wasn't in quite the same class as a Göring or, say, a Dzerzhinsky.) Sca (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Janke --Andrei (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  I withdraw my nomination Fine, you got what you wanted—blocked a picture, not because it fails the featered picture criteria, but on purely ideological grounds. Maybe you should nominate all the currently featured Nazi propaganda to be delisted, at least for consistency's sake. (t · c) buidhe 07:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Allow me to repeat: Fails criterium #3 - this is not among Wikipedia's "best work"... --Janke | Talk 20:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiah Scroll

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2020 at 15:10:00 (UTC)

Original – High quality scan of the Isaiah Scroll

Reason

High quality scan of Isaiah Scroll, dating to 356 to 100 BC. It is the oldest complete copy of the Book of Isaiah.

Articles in which this image appears

Isaiah Scroll

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others

Creator

Israel Museum and Google

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 17:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose Isolated detached objects at the bottom of the scan bellow the second and third to last sheets and the 13th from the left.©Geni (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Geni: I removed them. For the record: the three fine lines were on the white border, not on the scroll itself, and they looked like scanner edge stitch marks. Bammesk (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.2% of all FPs} 16:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (t · c) buidhe 01:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Andrei (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:The Great Isaiah Scroll MS A (1QIsa) - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elephant Trunk.png

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2020 at 17:49:56 (UTC)

Reason

POTY finalist a couple of years' back. FP on Commons. Of note, this is an amateur pic.

Articles in which this image appears

Elephant's Trunk Nebula

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

Chuck Ayoub

• Support as nominator – MER-C 17:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – amateur! flash? :-) Bammesk (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Amazing quality from a $2,000 scope! Of course, the camera must also be pretty "special"... --Janke | Talk 14:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support || DreamSparrow ^Chat 17:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although the article its in is a classic case of needing to be padded out to fit all the images.©Geni (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support high EV. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Elephant Trunk.png --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soyuz TMA-13

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2020 at 08:44:33 (UTC)

Reason

An restored image. FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Soyuz TMA-13

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Getting there

Creator

NASA/Bill Ingalls, restored by Lošmi

• Support as nominator – TheFreeWorld (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment not sure the cut off launch tower on the right is ideal.©Geni (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.2% of all FPs} 16:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – we have a similar FP of TMA-9 here, but this shows more detail. Bammesk (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jaydenfromcanada (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck vote, sorry but per instructions on top of this page editors must have at least 100 edits to vote. User currently has 83 edits. Bammesk (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support : DreamSparrow ^Chat 16:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Soyuz TMA-13 Edit.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A pressure ridge with lenticular clouds in the sky.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2020 at 12:10:16 (UTC)

Reason

High quality

Articles in which this image appears

Pressure ridge (ice), Lenticular cloud, Earth, Scott Base

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather

Creator

NASA/Michael Studinger

• Support as nominator – TheFreeWorld (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportAdam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.2% of all FPs} 17:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Very pretty, but a little noisy, and the EV in its current use is questionable. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – agree with David above. It can be placed in pressure ridge (ice) article for example or lenticular cloud. Bammesk (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – The cloud appears to emanate from the ice... This would need an explanation. --Janke | Talk 09:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose technical quality not there. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Charlesjsharp--Andrei (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Arbell as Queen Amahelli in Massenet's Bacchus

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2020 at 16:23:04 (UTC)

Reason

Nice view of the costume, and the opera being one of the most obscure Massenet operas means that there aren't a huge amount of resources for it, so it's a lucky find. There's a couple other options - a closeup of Arbell's face, and one that I'm not quite convinced is from Bacchus, whereas this one has some very strong evidence. Beyond that, there's a few set designs, but that's more for when the article's more developed.

Articles in which this image appears

Bacchus (opera), Lucy Arbell

FP category for this image

WP:FP/THEATRE

Creator

Paul Nadar, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.2% of all FPs} 16:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support impressive restoration job. (t · c) buidhe 09:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The articles are a bit thin. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit, but given Bacchus's lack of modern performance history, it's not excessively so. Only thing missing, really, is a plot summary, which, again, is probably to do with it being a foreign-language work without modern performances. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.2% of all FPs} 19:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 18:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support : DreamSparrow ^Chat 16:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TheFreeWorld (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lucy Arbell as Queen Amahelli in Massenet's Bacchus, wide view.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julie d'Aubigny redux

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2020 at 16:47:20 (UTC)

Reason

It's passed Commons, and, as far as I can tell, only didn't pass here a month ago because of a low point of participation around the time of its last nomination. More information at that nomination.

Articles in which this image appears

Julie d'Aubigny

FP category for this image

It's a judgement call, but probably Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment.

Creator

Unknown artist, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.2% of all FPs} 16:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support impressive restoration job. (t · c) buidhe 23:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think it would be a good thing to sort out the citations etc. first. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Charlesjsharp: I'd say that's less of an issue at FPC, and more of something that needs done before POTD. Given we're in the middle of COVID-19, and libraries are closed, I think it's reasonable to kick that down the road a bit. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.2% of all FPs} 14:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite a few lines in the article seem anecdotal. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, but this is FPC, not GAC. Definitely something to be worked on, but I think an FP can be used to drive people to articles to improve them, so am not too worried about them if they're above a certain level. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.2% of all FPs} 19:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 18:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support || DreamSparrow ^Chat 17:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TheFreeWorld (talk) 09:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mademoiselle Maupin de l'Opéra (Julie d'Aubigny).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Austerlitz

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2020 at 07:30:35 (UTC)

Reason

High encyclopedic value, visually appealing

Articles in which this image appears

Lead image in Battle of Austerlitz, War of the Third Coalition, and Napoleonic Wars. Used in several others.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/War

Creator

François Gérard

• Support as nominator – (t · c) buidhe 07:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - could use a slight level correction in the shadows - details get lost in the darkest parts. --Janke | Talk 13:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Who's who? – Sca (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The filename was confusing or incorrect because it seems this painter was not commonly known as Pascal; I've changed it accordingly. I also adjusted the shadows. (t · c) buidhe 22:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – this was nominated previously: [6], [7], the scan comes out to 11 pixels per inch of canvas, not very detailed. Bammesk (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Request withdrawn I didn't realize that this was nominated before. Although I was unable to find any higher-resolution/better quality photographs online, hopefully one will be uploaded in the future. (t · c) buidhe 04:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

La bohéme, Act III

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2020 at 19:27:17 (UTC)

Reason

A fine poster, advertising the music score, contemporaneous with the first productions, with art by the same person as designed the costumes for the première (hence, I presume, the date: The opera premièred early 1896, but a lead time would get 1895 for the art easily.

Articles in which this image appears

La bohème

FP category for this image

WP:FP/THEATRE

Creator

Adolfo Hohenstein, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.2% of all FPs} 19:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Does not add significantly to article. Need poster for First Performance in Italy/the one in the infobox. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say a major, major opera can have one FP per Act. And many have (see Aida). The only requirement for an FP in the line of what you propose is that the article is robust enough to hold them, and that they aren't redundant to each other - each shows something differently valuable. Otherwise, we're in a situation where we're basically saying every image but the first in an article should never be improved.

If we go by your requirement, why should anyone **ever** improve anythng but the main image of an article? Why bother photographing juveniale birds? Why would I put 10 hours into restoring any image but the lead?

That requirement leads to terrible mediocrity. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.2% of all FPs} 14:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get all this. Is this performance in France particularly significant? I would argue that an image of a juvenile bird could qualify as "Featured pictures are images that add significantly to article", but I would normally nominate the infobox image first. Many of my "second in article" nominations fail here e.g. the panther chameleon current nomination which I suggest adds hugely to the article, but voters here disagee. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase Bammesk's reasoned oppose vote below. An image of an early performance in Italy, has more EV than a later performance in France. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to clear up a misconception: This is from the first production worldwide, by the costume and prop designer for the first production, and predates the first production in France by three years (and the first production worldwide by a couple months). The Ricordi publishing company was basically Puccini's patron. I presume Italian versions of this same advertisement exist, but Italian libraries are pretty, er... locked down to us. It's by the same exact artist, and same timeframe as the poster at the start of the article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.2% of all FPs} 15:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Oppose struck. I normally support the image that adds most value to an article (I thought we all did) and I'd be interested how Bammesk sees this issue, comparing his oppose of my nom of the reptile. I think we should be consistent. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How I see what issue?! Bammesk (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to your comment 'the one in the infobox has more EV', which is what I'm arguing here (though not opposing). 17:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

About the reptile nom: my quote is "a full body photo, like the one in the infobox, has more EV." [8] It has more EV not because it is in the infobox, it has more EV because it is a full body photo. By saying "like the one in the infobox", I meant "such as" that photo, I meant to point you to it. I used commas, one on each side, to isolate it as an example photo. The comment's rationale was "a full body shot .... has more EV". And I inserted an example in the dotted lines. I elaborate more in the reptile nom. Bammesk (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't think we should be falling out over this. The community here is generally very mutually supportive. I'm going to take a short break and see you all later. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (t · c) buidhe 15:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 19:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Advertisement for the music score of La Bohème, 1895.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crepidotus variabilis

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2020 at 00:47:46 (UTC)

Reason

High quality lead image. Closeup of Crepidotus variabilis, a fungi species. This specimen is 9mm in diameter. The species doesn't have its own article, the image is used in the genus article Crepidotus.

Articles in which this image appears

Crepidotus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Fungi

Creator

Famberhorst

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think you'd be better off nominating one of his many FPs. This one is not one of the best. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Charles, I suggest you do your homework first and check the file description page before making statements like that. This was voted 17 to nil on Commons [9]. This is just a cropped version, cropped for infobox (too much empty space for infobox). Also, don't cast aspersions, be specific when you comment, calling something "not the best" doesn’t mean anything, it's just an aspersion unless you say why, do you object the focus, the colors, or what? Lastly, Commons FP is not a requirement. I know you want it to be, but it is not. Bammesk (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Steady on, my friend! I didn't object, I commented. I didn't spot it was FP because the file description page makes no mention of FP because you uploaded a crop of a Famberhorst FP. I can't be expected to notice that it is derived from an existing file - that's not "homework"! You should mention this in the nomination "Reason" to help voters. I didn't vote for the FP as it is too soft for my taste and has a weird halo, but I do not oppose Commons FPs here on technical grounds as the majority decision has been made. I am not obliged to support though. You are of course entitled to upload modified versions of other people's photos, but I hate it when people do it to mine. I think one should always ask the authors if they are still active. Also, you've made a mistake on the catgegories as you have duplicated the image in FP categories. Your crop is not FP at Commons, so this and the user categories need to be removed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The onus isn't on nominators to show you a Commons FP nom, Commons FP is not a requirement here at en-WP. When you comment, the onus is on you to do it right (regardless of vote). You suggested the image quality isn't up to Commons FP, wrong, it is, and wrong because Commons FP is not a requirement, and then you didn't say why, another wrong, and this last wrong is a big deal. "This is not one of the best" on its own is meaningless. It is an opinion, but it says nothing about the image. When you write a negative critique, say the specifics upfront, say it is the focus and the halo, and say it upfront, not after a back and forth. . . . . Uploading a crop as a separate file doesn't need an ask. . . . . The categories were automatically assigned by CropTool, not me. They were inherited from the original. You can drop a note at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, there may be a reason for it. Bammesk (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Les Huguenots

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2020 at 00:02:40 (UTC)

Reason

A fine illustration of Act II in the original production. Adds significant value by showing a significant piece of the work.

Articles in which this image appears

Les Huguenots

FP category for this image

WP:FP/THEATRE

Creator

Célestin Deshayes; restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 00:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lovely restoration. (t · c) buidhe 04:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 09:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support : DreamSparrow ^Chat 16:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TheFreeWorld (talk) 09:46 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support.Smeat75 (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Meyerbeer - Les Huguenots - Décor Acte II.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American officer and French partisan crouch behind an auto during a street fight in a French city

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2020 at 01:30:57 (UTC)

Reason

Highly historically valuable image. The quality could be better, however in my opinion the historical value and compelling human interest of the image outweighs its flaws.

Articles in which this image appears

French resistance (lead image), History of France, Sten, cover of a book (different version)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War II

Creator

unknown US Army Signal Corps soldier, uploaded by National Archives bot, restored by User:Buidhe

• Support as nominator – (t · c) buidhe 01:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 09:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's a line on the cheek of the man who's standing up a bit more; I think it's an artefact as it looks misplaced for a scar. There's also a speck roghtly left and slightly down of the nose on the crouching figure. Minor specks elsewhere, including on the left... gendarme (?)'s face, but those seem the most important. Otherwise, looks pretty good, but I do like a little bit of extra attention to faces. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 16:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Adam Cuerden:  Done all these things (hopefully) — this is the first photograph I've tried to restore to FP quality, so I really appreciate the feedback! (t · c) buidhe 19:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. There's still a bright spot on the cheek of the left man in the kepi in the back, which I'd remove as well, but Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 19:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. TheFreeWorld (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is an obviously posed photo with little EV - if this was really a "street fight", why would French gendarmes be standing together in the background making themselves obvious targets, and what's the soldier in the background doing just hanging around with his gun in its sling when the American soldier and resistance fighter are in combat? And why was the photographer standing in the street between the supposed fighters and whoever they were fighting to take this photo? A high proportion of "combat" photos from World War II were posed, but usually not as blatantly as this. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the French resistance article, you can see that virtually no photographs show the French resistance in action, they are all either post-liberation or show prisoners in German captivity. So unless there are better images to be had, I think this one retains significant EV. (t · c) buidhe 11:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nick-D raised legitimate questions about this photo. It actually looks staged. --Gnosis (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. We have historically blocked FP for photos that, like this one, have subjects who appear to be identifiable but have not been identified. Knowing who they were could go some way towards clarifying the seemingly-staged nature of the photo. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not unusual for the protagonists of a famous photograph to be unidentified. The Osprey book which has the photograph on its cover does not give their names or any additional information than is in the NARA caption, nor can I find it anywhere online. (t · c) buidhe 21:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree that a staged photograph necessarily lacks EV. This painting does not accurately depict the Battle of Austerlitz, rather it is a staged composition, but it is used as the lead image because we have no better images to use. I submit that this case is much the same, as it is dangerous to take photographs when combat is actually occurring. Should we delist Adam Cuerden's opera posters because they are promotional, not particularly realistic, and don't perfectly represent the opera in progress? (t · c) buidhe 21:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern here is that this is a badly staged photo. The photographer didn't even ask the guys hanging around in the background to get out of shot. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - It's certainly staged, but the frightening lack of firearm safety by that lieutenant is astounding. He's about to shoot the Frenchman in the leg. Yikes. Not good in terms of realism or professionalism. -- Veggies (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the safety was on?? ;-) --Janke | Talk 19:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cardamine pratensis

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2020 at 09:47:03 (UTC)

Reason

Was seen on Commons FPC last month, where it was featured unanimously. Well executed focus stack.

Articles in which this image appears

Cardamine pratensis

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers

Creator

Ermell

• Support as nominator – MER-C 09:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice image, but I really think that a flower FP should show stamen & pistils to have enough EV. Easy to reshoot such an image. --Janke | Talk 10:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kartik Naach (32461707477)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2020 at 11:14:46 (UTC)

Reason

It decpits Kartik Naach preety well.

Articles in which this image appears

Kartik Naach

FP category for this image

Culture and lifestyle

Creator

S Pakhrin

• Support as nominator – ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Unfortunately, bright light in background spoils this image. Fails Criterion 3. – Sca (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose quality is not good enough unfortunately, strange artifacts appear on the left side of the image. (t · c) buidhe 21:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sca and Buidhe: Does this version File:Kartik Naach (32461707477) (cropped).jpg look better?

• No, the artifacts are still there and I agree with MER-C's point about the composition. (t · c) buidhe 13:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - poor composition: cut off on bottom. MER-C 13:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above --Andrei (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mucha's poster for Gismonda (the other one)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2020 at 19:06:09 (UTC)

Reason

This was the poster that made Alphonse Mucha's career, as well as a lovely example of Art Nouveau. However, I must point out a downside: This is the reprint from Les Maîtres d'Affiche, a roughly contemporaneous reprint, but a reprint nonetheless.

Articles in which this image appears

Gismonda et al

FP category for this image

WP:FP/THEATRE

Creator

Alphonse Mucha, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 19:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – taking an exception to horizontal pixel count, it's historic and detailed enough. Bammesk (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (t · c) buidhe 04:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Ah! I've just asked a question at Commons that you've answered here. The source image is poor quality compared to the original and should not be the one we feature. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the link Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw Charles is right. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 18:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Athenaeum

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2020 at 09:27:13 (UTC)

Reason

High quality

Articles in which this image appears

Romanian Athenaeum, George Enescu, George Enescu Philharmonic Orchestra

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Poco a poco

• Support as nominator – TheFreeWorld (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice image, but I'm not seeing what EV it adds that's not in the lead image of the article. (t · c) buidhe 09:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Buidhe: I have replaced the infobox image with this one, it's better. MER-C 13:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - harsh lighting. MER-C 13:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Anne (wall painting)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2020 at 07:49:11 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, one of the most well known and described examples of Nubian art

Articles in which this image appears

Saint Anne (wall painting)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others

Creator

Unknown, scanned by National Museum in Warsaw

• Support as nominator – Andrei (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support high EV. (t · c) buidhe 07:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TheFreeWorld (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not the most visually impressive image, but high EV. It's uploaded by the museum, so that removes any worries as regards the photograph. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 15:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Autor nieznany, św. Anna - fragment postaci. Malowidło ścienne.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Added image to Artwork/Paintings instead. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kefermarkt altarpiece

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2020 at 11:21:03 (UTC)

Reason

As far as I understand the criteria, I believe this picture meets them. It has high EV and sculptures are somewhat underrepresented among the Featured Pictures. I would actually like to nominate the whole set of the four panels of the altarpiece, but can't find any instructions on how to do it, if it's at all possible.

Articles in which this image appears

Kefermarkt altarpiece

FP category for this image

Sculpture

Creator

Uoaei1

• Support as nominator – Yakikaki (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Currently, this image is part of a gallery. There isn't much commentary on each part of the panels, so I'm not seeing the contextual significance expected of featured pictures. However, this could easily be remedied by expanding the article with commentary about each part, removing the images from the gallery and putting them alongside the prose. (t · c) buidhe 11:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Buidhe: Thanks for your comments and suggestions, I think they make a lot of sense. Unfortunately though, I've been going through the sources I have and don't think I have sufficient material for a proper expansion of the article, at least not at the moment. Is it possible to close this nomination and, if I eventually manage a meaningful expansion, re-nominate the set? Thanks for your help, I'm rarely in this part of Wikipedia. Yakikaki (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold on, I think I've managed to find a really useful source among my books actually. Sorry for the mixed message, but I think I could be able to address these issues and get back soon with an improved article and use of the images. Yakikaki (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Buidhe: Can the current setup convince you? I've expanded the article (and will probably keep adding a few things later since I've managed to find good sources) and re-arranged the pictures. I think this is the best I'll be able to do for the panels, and still keep them coherently together and in a place within the article that makes sense. Yakikaki (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck oppose. (t · c) buidhe 13:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – soft top left corner, but EV and a nice article expansion. Bammesk (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bombing of Concordia Vega oil refinery in Ploești by USAAF B-24s, 31 May 1944

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2020 at 23:42:32 (UTC)

Reason

High encyclopedic value, looks cool

Articles in which this image appears

Consolidated B-24 Liberator, Combat box, Strategic bombing in World War II, Bombing of Romania in World War II, United States Strategic Bombing Survey, Catherine Caradja

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War II

Creator

Richard R. Ganczak (USAAF bombardier), restored by Buidhe

• Support as nominator – (t · c) buidhe 23:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – there are two dark spots, in the middle near the bottom, they don't look they belong there, I think they can be cleaned up. Bammesk (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done, thanks! (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Genuine war picture, not staged... ;-) Those little black clouds are from flak fire - the photo might be added to that article, too. --Janke | Talk 10:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 19:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support : DreamSparrow ^Chat 15:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Widely reproduced action shot showing what a World War II heavy bomber raid looked like Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bombing of Concordia Vega oil refinery in Ploești by USAAF B-24s, 31 May 1944 — restored.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marthasterias

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2020 at 13:08:41 (UTC)

Alternate – CSS Image crop, better DOF

Reason

About to be featured on Commons. Blurriness mitigated by high resolution and degree of difficulty.

Articles in which this image appears

Marthasterias

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Others

Creator

Diego Delso

• Support as nominator – MER-C 13:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Support the alt too. MER-C 16:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support either, prefer Alt, I introduced an alternate by the same photographer. It is just as detailed at the same magnification of starfish, and it has better depth of field/focus. Bammesk (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, slightly prefer alt due to focus although the original has more striking colors. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Alt is ineligible. Not in article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tatev Monastery

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2020 at 14:45:29 (UTC)

Reason

Detailed view of Tatev monastery and its surroundings. Sidenote: first nom [10] showed more of the surroundings but it was less detailed and a slightly stretched photo.

Articles in which this image appears

Tatev Monastery

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others

Creator

Diego Delso

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 16:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - DreamSparrow ^Chat 09:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - good, representative, high-quality image of a notable subject. Shame about the scaffolding, temporary roof and other building site debris, but it's an accurate depiction of the site as it stood at the time, and much higher-quality than alternatives that don't have this. TSP (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The infobox image, though not of this quality, is more encyclopaedic. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I agree with Charles. The scaffolding and such is likely removed now, and temporary additions to an ancient structure, with no discussion of the work being done (at least, not next to the image - if this was moved to the renovations section...), just doesn't seem to work. A pity, as the quality is excellent, but the EV is wanting because of that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 20:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it should be completed now, I think it's this: "The reconstruction of the Church of Surb Astvatsatsin to its original appearance was incorporated in the first stage of the Tatev monastic complex restoration. Work began in August 2016 and finished in October 2018." TSP (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Adam, do you think placing the image in the revival and restoration section (with an updated caption) gives it sufficient EV? There is a mention of the cable car station as well (in top left corner). Bammesk (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC) . . . . . By the way, Charles didn't say any of what you said. He gave no hints at all. The words "more encyclopedic", on their own, without context, leave the reader sitting and guessing. His comments too often border on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, examples [11], [12]. So often that I think it's disruptive. The instructions on top of this page call for "specific rationale". Just about all participants intuitively comment with some level of specificity. See Sca's comment here for example: "artsy composition", he is very clear.[reply]

• I did consider suggesting this move; but decided it wouldn't make it better. Putting it in that section would suggest it's a picture of the scaffolding; and, as a picture of the scaffolding, it isn't great, because the vast majority of the image is not devoted to the scaffolding or indeed the cable car. TSP (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, let's leave it where it is. I agree the scaffolding isn't ideal, but this is the sharpest clearest image we have, and the scaffolding isn't totally out of context given the renovation section of the article. Bammesk (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I agree with the criticism above. It may be the sharpest image, but sharpness isn't everything we need to consider. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gismonda

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2020 at 17:01:04 (UTC)

Reason

80+ Megapixel scan of a poster from a notable opera by a notable composer, based on a notable play by an even more notable playwright. Article on the opera could be longer, but it's also used in the play and playwright's articles, and FPs can help draw attention to articles.

Articles in which this image appears

Gismonda (Février), Gismonda, and Victorien Sardou

FP category for this image

WP:FP/THEATRE

Creator

Georges Rochegrosse, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 17:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent restoration. (t · c) buidhe 02:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - DreamSparrow ^Chat 09:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Andrei (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Georges Rochegrosse - Henry Février - Henri Cain and Louis Payen after Victorien Sardou - Gismonda.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Basilica, Kraków

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2020 at 11:15:14 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, EV, shows the church within the cultural and architectural landscape

Articles in which this image appears

St. Mary's Basilica, Kraków

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

User:Jar.ciurus

• Support as nominator – Andrei (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Artsy composition doesn't show the building very well. – Sca (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I agree with Sca. It's a great picture, but much more "postcard" than "encyclopedia illustration". Josh Milburn (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thermoclines and jellyfish

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2020 at 13:05:20 (UTC)

Reason

it is a high quality pic and one of the only ones that shows the subject as it appears in real life (rather than a diagram)

Articles in which this image appears

Thermocline, pycnocline, cline (hydrology)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Others

Creator

W.carter

• Support as nominator – (t · c) buidhe 13:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – a natural depiction of a density gradient phenomenon caused by salinity and temperature variations. Bammesk (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Illustrates phenomenon well, but jellies are not in focus. Charlesjsharp (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support for the EV alone regarding a high difficulty subject. It's a blurry mess at full res. MER-C 16:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Hogan

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2020 at 14:11:08 (UTC)

Reason

A handsome portrait of the man who may have brought down Richard Nixon.[13]

Articles in which this image appears

Lawrence Hogan

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Collection of the U.S. House of Representatives; restored by Coffeeandcrumbs

• Support as nominator – --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose restoration needs more work to be featured quality, in my opinion. At full magnification I can still see many spots (on the hair, clothes, and other parts of the image) that look like damage to the negative rather than part of the original. The smudges on the tie also look unnatural, although I can see they are part of the original .tif rather than the result of clumsy editing. (t · c) buidhe 16:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I agree, more spots can be removed. Bammesk (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe and Bammesk: I did more clean up. How does it look now? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Coffeeandcrumbs, I annotated some spots on Commons. His left eye has two bright spots, the lower spot isn't real, it doesn't match his right eye. The image isn't sharp at full size, but the pixel count is high and it meets the pixel count requirement even after a scale down. I did a quick google search and there are very few photos of him from that era. This image is from the archives of the U.S. congress, so I am inclined to support for its EV, once the annotated spots are touched up. Bammesk (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bammesk, I did more clean up in the areas you pointed out. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Conditional per Adam, below – Bammesk (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I strongly prefer File:Lawrence Joseph Hogan (restoration).jpg. This looks like a yearbook photo, something cropped in tight for teeny-tiny display. It also makes himlook like he has a giant head. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 20:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. I was divided on the crop and on first look preferred the uncropped version. Bammesk (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm presuming this nomination is basically dead at this point, but would encourage a re-nom soon after it closes (with, perhaps, enough time for the uncropped image to settle in). Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 00:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Field goal

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2020 at 16:03:46 (UTC)

Reason

Good depiction of field goal execution in American and Canadian football.

Articles in which this image appears

Field goal, American football

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Sport

Creator

U.S. Air Force, photographer Ned T. Johnston

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent sports photo with lots of EV Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 11:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 11:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 02:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC) =✓[reply]

Promoted File:Connor Barth attempts field goal 8 November 2015 151108-F-ID984-017.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glanville fritillaries mating

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2020 at 09:58:48 (UTC)

Reason

Was seen on Commons FPC this month, where it was featured unanimously.

Articles in which this image appears

Glanville fritillary

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Sven Damerow

• Support as nominator – MER-C 09:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 11:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The infobox images are more useful for the article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Charlesjsharp Interesting opinion, especially as some of your featured pictures (like File:Marsh fritillaries (Euphydryas aurinia) mating.jpg) are not in the infobox either. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Consistent actually, not "interesting" Armbrust (although I know you don't mean interesting). The first infobox image for marsh fritillary was rejected by Bammesk with reason "there are better images in the article". The second is an FP. And see comments below. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is it just me, or is there a LOT of dew on the butterflies? It looks pretty, but is arguably less encyclopedic. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 05:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• My take on the dew: I think it adds wow factor and doesn't take away from the EV (i.e. mating). Bammesk (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yes, this photo was taken very early in the morning. Lovely photo, but not encyclopaedic (or often seen) adding little value to the article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gallotia galloti palmae

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2020 at 10:08:59 (UTC)

Reason

FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Gallotia galloti

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

H. Zell

• Support as nominator – MER-C 10:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 11:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Infobox image is more useful. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This is lovely photography, but it being cut off limits EV. It's way better quality than the lead, but I'm not sure the crop of half the lizard is justified. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 22:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Simone

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2020 at 15:08:43 (UTC)

Reason

Portrait of Nina Simone at the peak of her career in 1965. The photo shows her in Amsterdam during her European tour. A tighter crop of this portrait has been the lead image since 2013. I recently restored the photo and widened the crop.

Articles in which this image appears

Nina Simone

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Photographer: Ron Kroon, source: National Archives of the Netherlands, restoration: Bammesk

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 11:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 11:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'd probably have cropped less, but it os a bit... busy in the cropped areas. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 17:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I hear you. My first upload was wider. I trimmed the plant, to put more of the focus on her. Bammesk (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah. Crop makes sense here, methinks. Wouldn't mind more headroom, but that seems the original amount. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 02:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer the tall thin crop of the nominated version to the conventional staid crop of the version it replaced. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Is this image not covered by copyright? Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Source says CC0. Why do you ask? Is it unclear? Bammesk (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought copyright rested with the creator Kroon, not an organisation that has a print/the original. And are you sure you can crop an artist's photo? But I'm no copyright expert. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The right place to ask is at Commons:Help desk. Bammesk (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Please go ahead; I may be wrong, but Copyright law of the Netherlands seems to indicate that using/altering the image would infringe copyright. MER-C, David Eppstein, Adam Cuerden have I got this wrong? I don't want to oppose if I'm wrong, but don't want Wikipedia to infringe anyone's copyright. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The National Archive of the Netherlands says it's licenced CC0 by the copyright holder (whoever that might be). I see no reason to disbelieve them. CC0 allows cropping and any other use you might like. It is not the case that any national copyright law disallows cropping of copyrighted works. What they might disallow is cropping without permission of the copyright holder. But here we have been told, authoritatively, that this permission has been granted. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Charles, I don't have to ask it, YOU should ask it at Commons:Help desk. You are not a newbie, participation at en-Wiki requires competence, see WP:CIR and WP:DISRUPT. Your questions in this nom are disruptive. Your copyright question relates to 400,000 files in This category, if you aren't clear and want to take issue with the copyright, then fine, do it at Commons help desk. Your crop question relates to all files on Commons, same thing with that, take it to Commons help desk. This nomination is not a help page for newbies, which by the way you are not. Bammesk (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's try to be a bit more civil, shall we? I think, given it was uploaded here by the library. we can presume the rights were released, either to them or to public domain. While libraries aren't perfect (nothing is), we can generally trust them. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 00:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Nina Simone 1965 - restoration1.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ariane

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2020 at 03:36:19 (UTC)

Reason

Some may have caught on I love Massenet. This is the poster for the première of his Ariane, lovingly restored.

Articles in which this image appears

Ariane (Massenet)

FP category for this image

WP:FP/THEATRE

Creator

Albert Maignan, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 03:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 11:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• N.B. I accidentally linked the lossless, PNG version, not the JPEG that's used in articles. They should be identical, save for Wikipedia's sharpening software failing to render PNGs properly. I've switched it back over. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 17:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 11:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Albert Pierre-René Maignan - Jules Massenet - Ariane.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]