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

Seth Rollins

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2015 at 00:34:56 (UTC)

Reason

Here's an underrepresented subject at FPC: professional wrestling. I was surprised to find this image when I was reading up on this year's Wrestlemania, and joy of all joys, it cleaned up really well. This has EV for both the wrestler (Seth Rollins) and a type of match (Money in the Bank ladder match). All in all, a very encyclopedic image.

Articles in which this image appears

Seth Rollins, Money in the Bank ladder match, +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

Anton Jackson on Flickr, edited by  — Chris Woodrich (talk)

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Aaarrghh. Sca (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, this is actually an image I feel can be supported for feature status. It might need some work, but I feel we lean far too much towards the highbrow and this is an FA image in the overall. Thoughts?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Quite inclined to agree. Support. Not perfect, but for an underrepresented subject that, by its nature, has difficult lighting, I think it's well over the bar. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Adam and Mark: this is pretty dramatic photo which illustrates its (rather weird IMO) topic well. Nick-D (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per all of the above. It feels a little soft in places, but given the venue, probably difficult to avoid.--Godot13 (talk) 05:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks like this guy doesn't mind showing he wrestles for cash. Brandmeister^talk 17:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Seth Rollins holds Money in the Bank briefcase at a WWE house show in January 2015.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Added it to Entertainment, because professional wrestling is scripted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ham Seok-heon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 14:19:33 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image of an important political, religious figure of 20th century Korea. I know that it doesn't quite meet the size requirements, but I just think that this is such a spectacular image that really captures something of this man's character. Plus, the width is barely under 1500.

Articles in which this image appears

Ham Seok-heon

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Religious_figures

Creator

[1]

• Support as nominator – Blorgy555 (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Date on the file page is wrong (Ham died in 1989; information template says this image was taken in 2008). Several stains. Curved black border, suggests to me this was scanned from a print source (rather than a negative). Also, not sure of the copyright status: source website says "All rights reserved". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qianlong Emperor

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2015 at 00:59:18 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image of one of the most important emperors of the Qing Dynasty

Articles in which this image appears

Qianlong Emperor

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Royalty_and_nobility

Creator

Giuseppe Castiglione

• Support as nominator – Blorgy555 (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Very nicely done... but what's the source of this digitization? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's already one FP of him since 2010. Brandmeister^talk 15:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but that one was placed under the Artwork category, while I'm nominating this one for the Royalty and Nobility category. There are also two images of Elizabeth I in there. Plus, I definitely think that Qianlong was a major enough figure in both Chinese and world history to warrant another image. – Blorgy555 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbidden City

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2015 at 01:12:06 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image of the Forbidden City

Articles in which this image appears

Forbidden City

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Pixelflake

• Support as nominator – Blorgy555 (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Nice picture, but with almost 60% of the picture being sky (albeit a very pretty sky), I cannot support this on the ground of EV for it's intended subject ie the city... However, not a full Oppose as the clarity and virticals seem to be in order... Maybe fine for a Commons picture (from what I understand of the MO for Commons) but here we are more focused on EV... gazhiley 11:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Generally agree w/gazhiley. OTOH it's an interesting shot aesthetically and it offers pretty good detail of main gate (if that's what it is). Maybe some cropping? Sca (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Corner of the Forbidden City

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2015 at 01:15:43 (UTC)

Reason

Image of an important work of Chinese architecture.

Articles in which this image appears

Forbidden City

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Charlie_fong

• Support as nominator – Blorgy555 (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - A bit too much foreground. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with the above, but my main reason for the objection is the whole picture seems to be on a slant to the left - use the structure in the middle as your guide - use the top part of the tower, and the various corner decorations as you progress vertically down the buidling... At full res on my machine there's quite a huge lean to the left... There also appears to be a soft focus across elements of the picture I would expect to be sharp with a file this size... Finally, I would have thought the corner tower should be central to the picture - off to the left slightly just makes this seem inbalanced to me... Bags of potential, but unfortunately seems to miss the mark for me... gazhiley 11:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Per previous two comments – plus corner-on shots of large rectangular structures tend to exaggerate perspective. Sca (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Musicians (painting)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2015 at 23:58:09 (UTC)

Reason

High quality scan of a notable work by a famous painter. We haven't had much Velazquez in a while.

Articles in which this image appears

The Three Musicians (painting) +1

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Diego Velázquez

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – excellent quality scan with an article to back it up to provide EV. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I can't say I care for the painting, but what do I know? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Agree that the content of the painting is pretty blah, but the quality of the scan is very good and has good EV. Mattximus (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - after all, I wrote that article. Hafspajen (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Diego Velázquez - The Three Musicians - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Addams

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2015 at 02:36:11 (UTC)

Reason

A Nobel Prize winner needs no real introduction.

Articles in which this image appears

Jane Addams

FP category for this image

Some subcategory of people.

Creator

Bain News Service, restoration by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Excellent image. Very good EV. I'd feel better if there was a direct link to the LOC page, though. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops. Fixed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Fantastic candidate. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Good EV, nice restoration/presentation of the original.--Godot13 (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per above. Bammesk (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Jane Addams - Bain News Service.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Added image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tile with two rabbits, two snakes and a tortoise. Illustration for Zakariya al-Qazwini's book

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2015 at 06:00:51 (UTC)

Reason

HQ + EV

Articles in which this image appears

Zakariya al-Qazwini

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others and Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Literary illustrations

Creator

Jastrow

• Support as nominator – Alborzagros (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Not sure I see the EV; al-Qazwini wasn't the artist, and he isn't depicted. The work mentioned in the caption here gets two lines, and I don't really see this (much later) illustration helping educate the reader. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture candidates/Sheikh-Lotf-Allah mosque wall and ceiling.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2015 at 06:58:11 (UTC)

Reason

HQ + EV

Articles in which this image appears

Sheikh Lotfollah Mosque

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Nikopol

• Support as nominator – Alborzagros (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No context about what we are looking at - for all we know this could be actually be looking down from some form of high up viewpoint... Not keen on such a close up picture - would be better taken further back so we can see more of the wall and also floor and ceiling in one shot... For evidence of how this should/could be done, see any of Diliff's pictures... gazhiley 11:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with above, I'm not sure what the photograph is showing, so the EV would be quite low. Mattximus (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a clear text under the photo in which we can see about what we are looking at, wall and ceiling. This picture is featuring cell and wall together and it is actually artistic. what do you exactly want me to explain about building? I thing your words are sort of split hairs. Alborzagros (talk) 06:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I can't speak for the rest Alborzagros, my personal issue is that if I saw this on the front page I wouldn't know what it is without reading the description, and therefore there's no "wow" factor that is so often mentioned in this process... And again, it's a bit of an odd composition for the interior of a religious building - especially when you compare it (as I mentioned above) to other FPs of religious buildings... It doesn't attract me to want to look at the article because my brain can't immediately tell what it is, and therefore if it was on the front page of wiki I'd keep scrolling... Not gonna support something that I wouldn't look at if it was on the front page... gazhiley 10:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Per gazhiley, Mattximus. Gimmicky comp. Sca (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walls of the former US embassy covered in mostly anti-US-murals graffiti after the Iranian hostage crisis (1979-1981)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2015 at 07:37:18 (UTC)

Reason

HQ + EV

Articles in which this image appears

Top pic: Iran hostage crisis + Propaganda in Iran + Anti-American sentiment in Iran
Low pic: Propaganda in Iran

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others

Creator

Nikopol

• Support as nominator – Alborzagros (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - These, one would assume, are still copyrighted in Iran. As such, they should be hosted locally, with a note that they are not copyrighted in the US as Iran has no copyright relations with the US. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was under the impression that the WMF's position was that we should respect Iranian copyright, even if the US government does not. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That it is, but that would apply to Commons. The English Wikipedia only requires that images be free in the US. (And yes, this has been a point of contention before). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2015 at 16:42:15 (UTC)

Reason

Painted by two artists, so improves coverage of both. Signatures are annotated, one of my favorite depictions of the subject.

Articles in which this image appears

The Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man, Garden of Eden, Original sin, etc

FP category for this image

Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Peter Paul Rubens, Jan Brueghel the Elder

• Support as nominator – Brandmeister^talk 16:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice scan. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – If only that horse had talked some sense into Adam.... Sca (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support an OK scan, article is a stub, but I think it could grow in the future. Mattximus (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – I'd like to see the article on the painting expanded a little more but it is sufficient to scrape through on EV; the scan of this interesting painting is also acceptable. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Chase

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2015 at 02:27:45 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image. We don't get many flutists.

Articles in which this image appears

Claire Chase

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Matt Carr/John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Could the crop be slightly tighter at the top (and possibly left and bottom too)? 109.157.12.42 (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could, though I wouldn't touch the bottom, for composition reasons. I'd like to wait for other feedback first, though. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a fan of top crop, without touching the left part. Brandmeister^talk 20:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - quality image, agree with the reason. (umbrella reflection in eye!) Bammesk (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - though a formal portrait, it doesn't feel too rigid or forced.--Godot13 (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

La Sill Panorama

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2015 at 07:25:37 (UTC)

Reason

A quality super high resolution good EV pic.

Articles in which this image appears

La Silla Observatory

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

F. Kamphues for ESO

• Support as nominator – -The Herald (Benison) • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 07:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Not quite sure on the EV here. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Do any panorama lack EV? They say what a thousands say together..-The Herald (Benison) • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 09:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is not on the landscape, but the observatory. The buildings themselves are quite small within the panorama. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Wide panorama adds EV for observatory as it gives an idea on observation conditions and location. Solid resolution, nice lighting. Brandmeister^talk 21:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Brand. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 08:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Godhulii 1985 (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Brand...--Godot13 (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Taken a while for me to vote on this as borderline for me - because of the size of the file means when I try to view it it zooms in so close I can't really see what I'm looking at, and at full zoom out it's just a thin detail-less line... But at this size it's nice enough... And can't really complain at it having 'too much' detail I suppose... gazhiley 10:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:A 360 degree panorama of a unique cloudscape over La Silla.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lathyrus pratensis

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2015 at 23:26:02 (UTC)

Reason

Always nice to have a plant. Good DOF for the subject, good composition, strong EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Lathyrus pratensis

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers

Creator

Ivar Leidus

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I'd rather see a closeup of the brilliant flowers. Sca (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baden-Powell authorized Siege of Mafeking 10 Shilling note (1900)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 09:24:22 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, high EV, very good condition. Authorized/issued by Robert Baden-Powell during the Boer War Siege of Mafeking. This emergency issue currency was printed locally in Mafeking.

Articles in which these images appear

Siege of Mafeking, Robert Baden-Powell

FP category for this image

Currency

Creator

Townshend & Son, Printers (Mafeking) for Col. Baden-Powell
From the National Numismatic Collection, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution.
Image by Godot13.

• Support as nominator – Godot13 (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Very strong image. Sadly, I don't see any discussion of the note (or the issue) in the article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chris, Fixed...--Godot13 (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support -  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Interesting historical tidbit. Sca (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – EV. Bammesk (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:SA-S654b-Boer War-Mafeking-10 Shillings (1900).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walking on a Mountain Path in Spring

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 12:51:11 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image of an exemplary painting from a highly significant artist in Chinese history. One of my favorite paintings. I know the image is below the size requirement, but considering that the painting is 27.4 cm × 43.1 cm, I think this requirement should be waived. On my screen, the image actually comes out to be slightly larger than the actual physical painting.

Articles in which this image appears

Walking on a Mountain Path in Spring, Ma Yuan (painter), Society of the Song Dynasty

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/East_Asian_art

Creator

Ma Yuan

• Support as nominator – Blorgy555 (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Beauty Revealed is 6.7 cm × 8 cm (2.6 in × 3.1 in) but has a resolution of 4,966 × 4,234 px resolution. Sorrow is 44.5 × 27 cm (17.5 × 10.6 in), with a resolution of 2,336 × 3,691 px. Joseph and Potiphar's Wife is 9.1 cm (3.6 in) × 11.4 cm (4.5 in), with a resolution of 4,078 × 3,266 px. More is definitely possible. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am not trying to be snarky or anything but am genuinely curious, does anyone know how this got promoted considering its size? - Blorgy555 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was promoted in 2008, well before the increase in the minimum size requirements (when I first joined FPC in 2011, the minimum size was 1000 px on the short side). See the criteria as they were at the time. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Nice painting, but it is below the minimum resolution. If it was destroyed I would support, but since it isn't I'm sure a higher quality scan of this image is possible. Mattximus (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ko Un

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 14:04:59 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image of a notable Korean poet

Articles in which this image appears

Ko Un

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Artists_and_writers

Creator

Matěj Baťha

• Support as nominator – Blorgy555 (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Noisy, flat lighting, and the microphone is distracting. Compare with our FPs of Junot Díaz, Terrance Hayes, Chandiroor Divakaran, and Arundhati Roy. This image is useful, but falls short of the aesthetic criteria of WP:FP? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il statues at the Mansu Hill Grand Monument

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2015 at 00:46:58 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image of an important monument in North Korea. I think that the people bowing to the statues adds to the EV in this case. There is another good image of these statues without any people, but I prefer this one.

Articles in which this image appears

Mansu Hill Grand Monument

FP category for this image

Not entirely sure, I supposed Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Sculpture, though I don't really think of these as works of art. Maybe Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Political?

Creator

Bjørn Christian Tørrissen

• Support as nominator – Blorgy555 (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Copyright wise, the statues are fine (there's FOP in N. Korea). It's a damned shame the quality isn't up to par. Lots of JPG artefacting and posterization. The composition itself is good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the other one I linked to in the Reason? I don't think it's as interesting a photo but it's still good. – Blorgy555 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's technically a better image, but you're right that the composition is lacking a bit. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree there's problems, but given North Korea allows so few people in, I think it's worth waiving this one through on rarity grounds. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Per Adam. Astounding tableau – tells you all you need to know about DPRK. I like the perspective & stark context of the nominated shot better than the pic at right. Sca (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh, Kim Jong-il's clothing changed... – Blorgy555 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "tells you all you need to know about DPRK." Though I can't exactly agree with this statement. – Blorgy555 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meant somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Sca (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support - The rareness of this shot does give it some wiggle room, but I'm not convinced that nobody could bring a decent camera into the country. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (Full disclosure: I took this photo.) Although I agree with the criticism regarding technical qualities, I'm quite happy with the photo. The restrictions on what kind of camera you can bring keeps softening up, but at the time I took this photo, I used the best camera I dared to bring, based on the rules at the time. Also, you're given very little time to set up your photo, and catching a group bowing to the leader is a matter of pure luck. You can't just wait around for another group to arrive. I also like that it's a small group, because that's the most realistic setting. There are a lot fewer visitors to these sites than most people imagine, except on special occasions. Also, while the other photo shown here is a good one, it shows how the site looked previously (pre-2013), while the nominated photo shows the current look of it. They changed the outfit of Kim Jung-il to the new anorak in 2013, because that's what he usually was wearing, apparently. uspn (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, uspn. It's a great shot – almost iconic, to reuse an over-used word. Tells the story better than 1,000 words could. Sca (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We weren't allowed to go any closer to the statues than the bowing people you see in the photo, and only briefly. We were also not allowed to zoom in on the statues. One theory is that although the statues are claimed to be bronze, they are actually just bronze-coloured plastics. Supporting that theory is how quickly they were able to completely remodel/redress one of the statues in 2013. I suppose a good zoom-in on some parts of the statues might disclose that. I did not become aware of this theory until I returned home, and this was on just my second day in the country, so I was not feeling like "stealing" some full-zoom shots of the "seams" of the statue, but it would be interesting if someone else did! uspn (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• USPN, I've got a question: what format were you saving your files as on the camera? Large/fine (not sure of the term used with the DSC-HX100V), or...? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fairly basic camera, but I used the highest resolution available in Fine JPEG mode, which is as much as I can get out of it. It's got more zoom than actually is allowed to bring into North Korea, but I took the chance because the camera looks more "innocent" than a DSLR does. To be granted a tourist visa, you must declare that you are not a "professional photographer" and that you won't bring "professional equipment", but those terms aren't that closely defined. The exception is of course when North Korea specifically invites professionals to come. I think that very few of those who are invited are likely to donate their photos to the Commons, unfortunately. uspn (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dang... Oh well. — Chris Woodrich (talk)

• Comment Which is the current statue? Compare the two pictures here and the one on the left (our right) has changed... gazhiley 10:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By golly, you and Blorgy555 are right – Kim Jong Il got a different coat some time in the intervening two years! (Guess it's more casual-looking, i.e. more proletarian?) Another reason to support this nom. Sca (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current statue is the one shown in the nominated photo. uspn (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support While the technical standards could be better, it seems unlikely that we'll get a higher-quality image any time soon and the very strong (but horrific) EV more than makes up for this. A slightly tighter crop might be worth considering. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This picture tells so much about its subject in a dramatic way. SeoMac (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Godhulii 1985 (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Godhulii 1985 per the recent change to the guidlines of this page, can you please provide reason for your vote? Thanks gazhiley 09:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was no consensus to require such things, and the guidelines for support !votes haven't changed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right – gazhiley, please see this. Sca (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, ok fair enough... Never noticed that being discussed, would have def given my support to change - I hate un-explained votes... Don't see the point in them personally... Opens the door wide to sock voting and false votes... But anyways, that's a conversation for another day... gazhiley 07:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support because it doesn't invite lots of argument (I'm lazy so I tend to follow the tide which doesn't invite lots of argument). But as you tagged me, so here are the reasons for my support: 1) Very rare pic with a free license so I consider one of wikipedia's best work 2) follow relevant req like size, clear in full screen 3) has significant encyclopedic value in the article in which it appears and 4) I like to see this in wikipedia homepage. Godhulii 1985 (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mansudae-Monument-Bow-2014.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wright brothers (set)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 June 2015 at 02:24:00 (UTC)

Original – Wright brothers, Orville and Wilbur, 1905.

Alternate – a more balanced set. (withdrawn by nominator)

Reason

Image of well-known inventors.

Articles in which this image appears

Wright brothers, Wright brothers patent war, +3 others

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering

Creator

photographers: Orville and Wilbur Wright, [2], [3]

source: Library of Congress, [4]

restoration: Scewing, Bammesk

• Support as nominator – and Support ALT. Bammesk (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Who was the original photographer for these works? Also, I think the photographer missed the focus in the Wilbur Wright image. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the LoC, the photos were by the Wright brothers themselves. This really should be on the file information page. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above, also, IMO, too different to form a set. --Janke | Talk 12:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply - Fixed attribution. Added an alternate set. Wilber Wright image is soft, but a better portrait is unlikely and the encyclopedic value is high. Excluding scientists and NASA crew, we have very few engineers. These two are prominent. Bammesk (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• With all due respect to Janke, looking at [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] softness is not a sufficient criteria for opposing historic images. Wilber image is in par with many others, when viewed at the same magnification. Even if it wasn't, softness is not an overriding criteria. As far as the two images being "too different to form a set", after rethinking it, this is an encyclopedia, not a magazine or a photo book. There is no editorial luxury here to redo historic images, so I am withdrawing the "alternate set". The two images are a set in as much as the two subjects are a set. As far as any display related issues, Template CSS image crop allays that. Bammesk (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose alt - I'm not happy with the idea of changing a picture away from its natural state in such a way that kills a lot of the visibility of the detail, and crops a large part out. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This will not fully address Adam's concern, but for the "alternate set" we can replace Wilber's image with one that is cropped as shown (from the "original set"), without manipulation. Bammesk (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adam, addressed. Bammesk (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC) Bammesk (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Iran and Turan in Qajar dynasty drawn by Adolf Stieler - 1891

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2015 at 12:24:01 (UTC)

Reason

HQ + EV

Articles in which this image appears

Adolf Stieler
Stielers Handatlas
Turan

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps

Creator

Adolf Stieler

• Support as nominator – Alborzagros (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle, though I wonder why this particular plate was chosen. Stielers is a wonderful cartographic and historical resource, beautifully executed with lavish detail. (I have this one matted & framed as a kind of souvenir of my Baltic adventures.) Sca (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Very useful map, but the JPG artefacting is pretty darn bad. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-Jobas (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2015 at 08:22:26 (UTC)

Reason

Made striping bands on Neptune and so blue are okay.

Articles in which this image appears

Neptune, etc.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator – JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 08:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and Speedy Close - The issues raised at the last two nominations have yet to be dealt with. If this continues, I'll move for a topic ban or something. This is getting disruptive. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 08:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Europa

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2015 at 08:14:56 (UTC)

Reason

Image from NASA.

Articles in which this image appears

Europa (moon), etc.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

NASA, JPL, DLR

• Support as nominator – JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 08:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and Speedy Close - Below the minimum resolution. This is getting disruptive. Familiarize yourself with the criteria. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 08:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callisto

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2015 at 08:08:35 (UTC)

Reason

Image from NASA.

Articles in which this image appears

Callisto (moon), etc.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

NASA, JPL, DLR

• Support as nominator – JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 08:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and Speedy Close - Below the minimum resolution. This is getting disruptive. Familiarize yourself with the criteria. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 08:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Sublatti

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2015 at 21:44:07 (UTC)

Reason

Given Eurovision's fast-changing lighting, the photo looks good. Decent overall sharpness, angle and composition.

Articles in which this image appears

Nina Sublatti

FP category for this image

People/Entertainment

Creator

Ailura

• Support as nominator – Brandmeister^talk 21:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - Crop is a bit too tight, IMHO, but the technical quality is there. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. My main issue with this picture is the unfortunate positioning of microphone shadow on her chin. At first, it is not very obvious (to me at least) what this dark shape even is. 86.152.163.37 (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for technical difficulty in not just lighting, but also getting a pose that doesn't look odd mid-note... I will be honest though and admit that part of my support is based on being totally mesmorised by this vision of beauty on Saturday while watching... Oh, and I am a Eurovision obsessive... However, enough of my vote is for the technical and EV element of this for me to support with the right intentions! gazhiley 14:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's a shame she's not facing the other way, per WP:IMAGELOCATION, but this is a great portrait. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- The microphone shadow is unfortunate, but a good image with very good EV for the bio.--Godot13 (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-Jobas (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:20150518 ESC 2015 Nina Sublatti 1991.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ferstadt working as part of the New Deal

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2015 at 13:23:19 (UTC)

Reason

History of art + HQ

Articles in which this image appears

Louis Ferstadt

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers

Creator

Sol Horn

• Support as nominator – Alborzagros (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Article is stub. Sca (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Does anyone object to me cropping to the border? The empty white space doesn't add anything, and the photograph already has empty space to form a border. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mind assuming the internal white frame is preserved, if it's a part of the photo. Brandmeister^talk 17:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was the plan, yes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Useful. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - would change to full support if article was a little longer. Bammesk (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-Jobas (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support The way the artwork and his chin blend a bit is unfortunate. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daruma doll

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2015 at 23:41:23 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image, shows all the key characteristics of the dolls

Articles in which this image appears

Daruma doll +2

FP category for this image

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

Creator

 — Chris Woodrich (talk)

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The DoF on the topside of the doll feels pretty good, the bottom feels a bit soft in comparison (particularly where the bottom edge meets the background). Something felt off or incomplete at first- I couldn't initially figure out if the eyes were cut out or blank (even though there is some difference between the two whites). Would a completed-eyes example be more compelling? Or, rather, would it have more or less EV than the blank eyes?--Godot13 (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'd rather have it without the eyes filled in; darumas are received/bought without filled in eyes, and so that would (for my purposes) be their "original" state. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Quality image backed up by plenty of EV. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -Jobas (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Crisco Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support high EV.--Godot13 (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yann (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Daruma doll, cut out, 03.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Airbus A380-861 taking off from Munich Airport's runway 26L

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2015 at 12:17:25 (UTC)

Reason

High quality photo (I think), taken at the angle that I find most useful in articles, with the wingtip just in front of the vertical stabilizer.

Articles in which this image appears

Airbus A380

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air

Creator

Julian Herzog

• Support as nominator – — Julian H.^✈(talk) 12:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great shot. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Good capture of the aircraft, but I don't see how it adds significantly to the EV of the 10 other shots of A380s taking off or landing at Airbus A380. (That article would be improved by deleting a few of them, IMO. Overkill.) Sca (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the article: "As of April 2015, Emirates is the largest operator of the type with 59 aircraft in active service"; that's one good piece of EV. Second is the fact that many of the images are very poor. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some should be delisted? Sca (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean removed from the article? Yeah, but there'd likely be trouble if it was done unilaterally. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are more photos in the article than necessary. I'm not convinced though, naturally, that this one would be the first that should be removed. In my opinion, it's both relevant (as illustrated by Chris Woodrich) and of higher quality than most other photos in the article. I'm not very familiar with the arguments concerning this on EN:FPC as this is my first nomination, so I'll have to trust your judgement concerning the way this should be held against the nomination. — Julian H.^✈(talk) 10:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Indeed nice angle, allowing to see all engines plus deployed landing gear, adequate sharpness. Brandmeister^talk 14:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 02:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose--Samək^Talk 13:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samək, please note that instructions above say, "Write Oppose, followed by your reasoning, if you disapprove of the picture." Thanks. Sca (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• [Addendum: Amazed I didn't EC with Sca on this]. Why? Per the guidelines, "All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent Clarity, soooo pretty, and I agree the EV is in the branding as much as the aircraft itself... gazhiley 15:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Detail is very high for a large plane in motion, good EV-Godot13 (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Okay, I withdraw my oppose above, as it is a good shot technically. If it's promoted here, suggest it be moved up from the bottom of the Airbus A380 page and some of the lesser-quality duplicative pix deleted. Sca (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we have the authority to do it, I'd happily agree with Sca's request as part of the nom... gazhiley 08:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• gazhiley, if you have the ability to change an entry, i.e. it's not protected, you have the 'authority.' Sca (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• yeah I get what ur saying - I meant in terms of whoever monitors that page has it a particular way, so if we went in and started to rearrange it would that not tread on toes? Maybe not "authority" so much Sca - maybe "gravitas" ie can we say to whoever runs that page that "we agreed as part of the FP process that this should be moved, therefore it stays moved"... Or maybe I've got a lot to learn about how this site works! haha just too paranoid about causing offence I guess... gazhiley 13:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if someone disagrees with what you do, that's when you discuss issues with them. In terms of objective technical quality of photos, that shouldn't be a problem. Sca (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -Jobas (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Emirates Airbus A380-861 A6-EER MUC 2015 04.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aamina Sheikh

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2015 at 22:28:22 (UTC)

Reason

Potrait of well known Pakistani model. in my opinion this is overall a nice potrait, good sharpness, lighting, angle and composition.

Articles in which this image appears

Aamina Sheikh

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Tapu Javeri

• Support as nominator – Saqib (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support pending some top crop. Turns out the photographer also has his own article. Brandmeister^talk 23:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait - OTRS release needs to be confirmed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the line where the background was folded is distracting. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, and also, there seem to be dust spots visible all over the place. A bit sloppy. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep. Good catch. Fixable, fortunately, but I'm not touching this until the OTRS comes through. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umbriel

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2015 at 07:11:24 (UTC)

Reason

Upscale x2.47, seems better.

Articles in which this image appears

Umbriel (moon), etc.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

NASA, JPL

• Support as nominator – JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 07:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, bellow the size requirements. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2015 at 07:06:43 (UTC)

Reason

This is a greyscale image of Ariel.

Articles in which this image appears

Ariel (moon), etc.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

NASA, JPL

• Support as nominator – JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 07:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, bellow the size requirements. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faroese króna – World War Two locally-printed 10 Kroner (1940)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2015 at 22:56:29 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, high EV, good condition. During Operation Weserübung (the German World War II invasion of Denmark and Norway in April, 1940), the Faroe Islands were temporarily cut off from the Danish National Bank (their currency issuing institution). At first specially stamped Danish notes were circulated, but in October 1940 new notes were locally printed “on behalf of the National Bank of Denmark.”

Articles in which this image appears

Faroese króna

FP category for this image

Currency

Creator

Faroe Islands, on behalf of the National Bank of Denmark
From the National Numismatic Collection, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution.
Image by Godot13.

• Support as nominator – Godot13 (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: What's the US copyright? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris - Not certain I added the correct tag, please let me know.--Godot13 (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fairly certain that's not correct. The Danish cut-off for the URAA was 1996, whereas this note only became PD in 2010. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Doing some research...--Godot13 (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw--While Commons guidelines indicate that the reproduction of Danish National Banknotes is not allowed, the Danish National Bank does permit reproduction under specific circumstances. The size/quality of the present image exceeds what is allowed. Once this FPC is closed, I will nominate the file for deletion. --Godot13 (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monument to Alfonso XII

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2015 at 06:12:53 (UTC)

Reason

Good, high quality image of this monument. Well balanced and composed.

Articles in which this image appears

Monument to Alfonso XII +5

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Monument: José Grases Riera. Photograph: User:Kadellar

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality... Shame about the weather being quite so cloudy, but all details clear so can't see any reason not to support... gazhiley 09:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Per gazhiley. This shot also used (small) at Alfonso XII of Spain. I wonder what Alfonso (1857-1885) would have thought of those blue plastic rowboats? Sca (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "What is this witchcraft?" — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per above, nice monument pic. I don't mind the clouds. Mattximus (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Not a fan of the boats (personally), but a quality image with good EV.--Godot13 (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - is it me or is the image titled slightly clockwise! Bammesk (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that you mention it, I can see it too, very slightly. Methylated603 (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The verticles are all fine from what I can see - every one lines up perfectly against the edge of my screen... gazhiley 07:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Support -Jobas (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Monumento a Alfonso XII de España en los Jardines del Retiro - 04.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

European bee-eater

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2015 at 20:59:51 (UTC)

Reason

photo European bee-eater good quality in commons

Articles in which this image appears

European bee-eater

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Elgollimoh

• Support as nominator – Touzrimounir (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What about this alternate picture which shows them about to eat a bee, true to the name. Mattximus (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't the alt already featured? Anyway, the original image is good, but probably not sufficiently different to justify featuring it when the existing FP is already there and much better. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -Jobas (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I think the two pictures are different enough to justify featuring it. The existing FP shows the action from which the bird gets its nickname and the new one shows the colors of the feathers and the bill up close and brilliantly. CorinneSD (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --PetarM (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha's disciples

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2015 at 03:45:10 (UTC)

Reason

Interesting and high resolution image with EV

Articles in which this image appears

Outline of Buddhism

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture

Creator

AntanO

• Support as nominator – AntanO 03:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Crop on the left is awfully tight. Also, there's no freedom of panorama in Sri Lanka. When was this statue erected? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Sri Lanka's FOP has been raised in Commons (I guess last year) and expected mass deletion of all Sri Lankan buildings, structures, sculpture, etc. However, they were saved as per TOO. --AntanO 13:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, no. That is certainly not something we can make a blanket assumption about. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Unclear copyright status and limited EV in current usage. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Limited EV, it's buried in an article that doesn't really reference the contents of the picture. Mattximus (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 03:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/. --JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 03:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salak

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2015 at 03:43:49 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality. We haven't had any fruit in a while.

Articles in which this image appears

Salak +1

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits

Creator

 — Chris Woodrich (talk)

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Excellent quality photograph, good EV (for me anyway as I've never come across this fruit before!). SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Per Phil. (Wondering a little about the shadowing on the unpeeled fruit, though.) Sca (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dark spot in the middle? It's the seed. Fairly close to the surface. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - But I do think that the scale should be labelled on the image itself. Specifically "1 cm", which I believe is the form taken in most non-English countries anyway. You will see "1 cm" even in China. Mattximus (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be common, but it's not universal. The Japanese film 5 Centimeters per Second, for instance, was written "秒速5センチメートル" in Kanji. Our article on centimetres in Arabic doesn't use the "CM" abbreviation. Since this is JPG, and the text is not as easily replaceable as in SVG, I decided to avoid using any numbers or text on the image itself. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, I don't know much about Arabic, but I am eating a Japanese candy right now and the box is written entirely in Kanji, but all the units are in SI, including kcal and g. I'm almost certain they are all tought SI units in school. But you are right, I can't prove it's universal of course. Mattximus (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the units should be on the image. 86.183.129.64 (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're English WP, it would seem cm. should be used – if poss. Sca (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And the image is not meant solely for the English Wikipedia. Also, we've previously promoted images that didn't have a scale at all; would you rather I did that? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To YT an unlabeled scale poses more of a question than an answer. But whatever – it's your pic. (How about sending me a few salaks ... er, salaki?) Sca (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Which would only be a problem if the scale information wasn't in the information template. I don't know what the export laws are like. This blog post suggests nobody's importing them in the US  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, an unserved niche market. Here's your chance to make zillions! Sca (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's straightforward to work out what the scale indicates and, as Chris pointed out, it is included in the template, so I don't feel it's necessary. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Clarify - I don't think it's necessary to include the units is what I meant to say ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's at all straightforward to work it out. In fact, I think, with no legend, the "dual scale" is downright confusing. I can't envisage any situation, in any language context, where having the scale labelled "1 cm" would be worse than the present unabelled situation. And anyone with even the smallest graphical skills could replace the text if they really wanted to. 81.132.192.73 (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Then we agree to disagree. Particularly about the "smallest" graphical skills. I've seen some really bad stuff. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... and as well as being confusing, the omission of a label on the scale also looks like an error or oversight rather than a deliberate choice. I don't think people would expect such an omission to be done on purpose because it seems so unhelpful. 81.132.192.73 (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A no-frills but quality macro photo, with good EV. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -Jobas (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Salak (Salacca zalacca), 2015-05-17.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Green lacewing fly

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2015 at 12:57:02 (UTC)

Reason

Excellent quality depiction of species adding to the articles

Articles in which this image appears

Chrysopa, Neuroptera

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk)

• Support as nominator – Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Interesting detail. Could be cropped a bit from bottom & top (esp. bottom), as (blurry) white material, though a good backdrop, doesn't add visual info. Sca (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, done as an alternative. Thanks for the suggestion. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt. – Sca (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT - It's probably the more encyclopedic of the two. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance of having a species name? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid not, this is a large genus and exact ID is only possible by close examnination of genitalia & etc. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Blast. It's the mealybugs all over again — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• If I had a penny for every time I've heard that line...Belle (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt. – Yann (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, preference for alt. Excellent macro. Good detail and most important parts in focus. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -Jobas (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alternative -- Slaunger (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt – even if it does look like it is crawling on anaemic rice pudding. Belle (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Crisopid July 2013-9a.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Loftus Screwing a Breech Ring

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2015 at 23:57:09 (UTC)

Reason

Something different for a change, though there is still good quality and resolution.

Articles in which this image appears

Ruby Loftus Screwing a Breech Ring, Laura Knight

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Laura Knight

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Historical EV. (Too bad they didn't say boring or machining.) Sca (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Wonder why she's not wearing safety glasses. Sca (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – EV. (technically screwing is different than boring. Left hand shouldn't be there either!!) Bammesk (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Good EV and resolution. Kaldari (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Very nice and backed up by a couple of interesting articles to provide plenty of EV. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Good EV and resolution.--Godot13 (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -Jobas (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Slaunger (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ruby Loftus screwing a Breech-ring (1943) (Art. IWM LD 2850).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actin Filaments in a Cultured Cell

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2015 at 00:25:04 (UTC)

Reason

Very high technical standard, high resolution image, gives insight into the complexity of cells (this is the network formed by just one of the cell's cytoskeletal proteins) aesthetically pleasing, has scale and metadata.

Articles in which this image appears

Deconvolution, Confocal microscope, Fluorescence microscope

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology

Creator

methylated603

• Support as nominator – Methylated603 (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question I used to make pictures like these! Yours is much better than my best. I'm just wondering about the colours. Presumably you used a single fluorescent protein, so what exactly are the colours showing? Are the red higher in the z-stack and purple lower? Mattximus (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mattximus: Thanks, yeah I used phalloidin (it would have conjugated to a 488 fluorophore) and took images every 80nm from the bottom to the top to get what the filament distribution is like in the whole cell. To show it in 2D I've depth coded it then merged it so each slice in 'z' is a slightly different colour allowing you to see where abouts the filaments are with regards to the cell height. If you look closely at the full resolution image you'll see that there is posterization in some places, this is intentionally left as thats where one slice ends and the next begins. I took this on an inverted microscope, the orange/red is at the cell base (what was attached to the coverslip) and the purple is at the very top of the cell. Methylated603 (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I'll just pretend I understood a word of the above. Tra la la, pretty! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the measurement – mm.? Sca (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Micrometre Mattximus (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -Jobas (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Impressive. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support But please add it to the "Nightmarish chicken monster" article (I'm definitely not eating cheese before I go to bed tonight or that will be chasing me through my dreams) Belle (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Depth Coded Phalloidin Stained Actin Filaments Cancer Cell.png --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peep show in Golestan Palace

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2015 at 12:35:12 (UTC)

Reason

HQ + EV

Articles in which this image appears

Peep show

FP category for this image

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

Creator

مانفی

• Support as nominator – Alborzagros (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Not mentioned in text of article. Sca (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's written in article.++Alborzagros (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfind mention of Peep show in Golestan Palace, Tehran or Iran in text of article. Sca (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Allan IN 2014

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2015 at 12:42:46 (UTC)

Reason

HQ + EV

Articles in which this image appears

Charlie Allan

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Krd

• Support as nominator – Alborzagros (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Of questionable EV. Sca (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  He is a musician. why you say no EV?++Alborzagros (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To a non-bagpipe fan, two-paragraph article implies relative obscurity. (I didn't say "no" EV.) Anyway, not convinced this pic is an improvement on its more closely focused predecessor. Sca (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose EV is fine for me (known musical artist, in band outfit, playing the instrument he is known for), but cropped too close - feet are cut off.. Would prefer a full length picture as this is fairly easily able to be re-taken... gazhiley 13:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'd have gone with a half-length portrait. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone want to crop this and pose an alt? I don't have the software to do this... gazhiley 07:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Bad crop on legs. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yann (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario's longest rock cut

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2015 at 22:29:54 (UTC)

Reason

I took this image following a sunshower that left a nice shine on the whole rock face of this cut, which is too long to be seen in its entirety except from the air. I feel it is a nice image, high resolution, and possibly one of the few I've taken worthy of the FP star.

Articles in which this image appears

Ontario Highway 118

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others

Creator

Floydian

• Support as nominator – Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Strikes me as overexposed. HDR doesn't usually have such washed out colors. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The image doesn't appear to be as sharp as it could be, particularly in the background. The exposures aren't exactly aligned? Methylated603 (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Even in this shot, the distance to the background is about 750 metres (2,460 ft), but I see what you mean. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Very unnatural looking, clouds completely blown. --Janke | Talk 06:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Technically substandard. Sca (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Technical quality far below FP standards. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Johnson (musician)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2015 at 01:07:16 (UTC)

Reason

This deserves a second chance. Very well handled; noise is minimal. Pose is good. Last nom was one vote short.

Articles in which this image appears

Jack Johnson +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Peter Chiapperino

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Alas, left hand, guitar tuning head are pretty blurred due to low-light DOF. Sca (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depth of field. I'd like to see someone get f/8 in that lighting without cranking up the ISO. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endemic to performance venues. (Flash wudda worked.) Guess we could call it a mood shot & go with it. Sca (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• At 135mm, from this distance, the photographer would have needed a very strong flash. I doubt the venue would have allowed that. (Also, managing the light for flash in the field is quite difficult, particularly if the lighting changes rapidly). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetically I don't think it matters anyway that those elements are not in focus. You could even argue that it adds to the interest of the shot. 81.152.230.168 (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very good mood and colors. DOF is as expected giving the light conditions. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This one is special. --PetarM (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yann (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Okay, a moody blue shot. Sca (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now I'm going to go put on some Elvis. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^{How 'bout the Moodies? Sca (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

• That does go further back. Hmm... — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Jack Johnson 2014.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Celadon kettle in the shape of a dragon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2015 at 04:58:30 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image of an important piece of Korean ceramic art.

Articles in which this image appears

Goryeo ware, Korean pottery and porcelain, Celadon

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Others. (Is the East Asian art category exclusively for paintings, prints and calligraphy?)

Creator

National Museum of Korea

• Support as nominator – Blorgy555 (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Technical quality is pretty good, but that empty space at the top should probably be trimmed. No idea about the category question. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Alright, that's looking good. Support so long as the crop sticks. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't know where else to do this, so I'll just do it here. Would it be possible to either a) rename the East Asian art category to something like "East Asian paintings, prints and calligraphy" or "2D East Asian art" or b) move the East Asian works of art in the other Artwork categories into East Asian art? - Blorgy555 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's outside of the purview of this nomination. I really don't see a need for it, personally. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -Jobas (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Interesting. Brandmeister^talk 12:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:청자 어룡 모양 주전자.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow's Space Monument

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2015 at 22:49:14 (UTC)

Reason

it is free, it shows the subject in an aesthetically pleasing and striking manner

Articles in which this image appears

Moscow Monument to the Conquerors of Space

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

E.3

• Support as nominator – E.3 (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Aside from technical quality (there appears to be noise or compression artefacts, particularly around the rocket), and the fact that this doesn't show the whole monument (thus harming EV), there may be a copyright issue. Russian FOP only applies to buildings, not sculptures. Does the inclusion of a museum in the base make this a building under Russian law? We don't have any cases for precedence, it appears. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Pretty, but noisy sky & awkward angle for EV... Copyright issues aside, this would be better taken further back to show whole monument to be able to get a sense of scale... gazhiley 07:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Falling on the Way to Calvary (Raphael)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2015 at 23:26:19 (UTC)

Reason

High quality scan of an interesting painting by a well known artist. It also has an interesting tale associated with it...

Articles in which this image appears

Christ Falling on the Way to Calvary (Raphael) +3

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Raphael

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Very nice quality scan; I"ll admit to not reading all the articles it's in but the article on the painting itself provides good EV. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -Jobas (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --PetarM (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Christ. Hafspajen (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Christ Falling on the Way to Calvary - Raphael.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Germany never invade iran in ww I . Who wrote this?. This is not accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A46E:EEAF:1:CF0A:7311:6673:D0EB (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Toman – World War One Farsi-overprinted 5 German Mark (1916–17)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2015 at 22:29:33 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, high EV, high condition. This overprinted 5 Mark note is an example of a briefly issued and rare series of World War I emergency currency. This 1904 German Imperial Treasury note was re-issued in 1916–17 for use by German forces in Iran and denominated in the local qiran, a subunit of the Iranian toman.

Articles in which this image appears

Iranian toman, Persian Campaign

FP category for this image

Currency

Creator

German Imperial Treasury
From the National Numismatic Collection, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution.
Image by Godot13.

• Support as nominator – Godot13 (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Need a US copyright tag for the banknote itself. (PD-1923). Or you can go with PD-1923-anon instead of the current template and have it apply to both the US and Germany. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Chris- Done (and thanks).--Godot13 (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Very good scan! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -Jobas (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Historical EV – presumably a very rare item. Even without the overprinting (right below), the banknote's Art Nouveau graphics are interesting. Sca (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Sca. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yann (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --- High-standard and full-encyclopedic. Alborzagros (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:IRA-M1-German Treasury-12 Kran 10 Shahi on 5 Mark (1916-1917).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intentional camera movement

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2015 at 23:36:59 (UTC)

Reason

Probably a controversial nom (it certainly has been at Commons) but I think it's too good to pass up. The image shows intentional camera movement, which, as the name suggests, is when a photographer deliberately moves a camera while taking a picture to have a specific effect. In this case, the photographer (Colin) moved the camera along the vertical plane to achieve an impressionist effect. He discusses the image here.

Articles in which this image appears

Intentional camera movement

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment

Creator

Colin

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A very good example of ICM and thus good EV in illustrating this technique. Very eye-catching as well. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I had hoped that, on Commons, the image would be appreciated as more than just an example of ICM. Didn't manage to convince 2/3 but plenty votes in support. On WP, I hope the case is easier since a bluebell wood is a common subject for ICM. In fact it is a bit of a cliché, like photographing an old derelict harbour using a 10-stop ND filter to smooth the waves to milky softness. -- Colin°^Talk 07:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --PetarM (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support But I would have preferred a horizontal movement on a road runner or sombrero-wearing mouse. Belle (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Even stronger support here than on Commons given its usefulness in illustrating ICM. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-Jobas (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – This photo would be more informative as a set combined with the same scene without camera movement for comparison. – Editør (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm... why? I can't imagine that someone would look at the image and say "Oh, look at how still those flowers are." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a link on the image description page, to a conventional photograph of scene. However, I agree that for discussion of the artistic effect, one doesn't need the standard version in the same way as someone doesn't ask for a colour version of a black and white photo or a classically painted scene vs an impressionist painting. -- Colin°^Talk 17:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- DreamSparrow ^talk 18:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's kind of funny that this is cruising along with unanimous support here on en FP, which is traditionally known for frowning upon "artsy" photos, when it didn't pass at Commons. And what's even more ironic is that its very artsy-ness is what gives it its EV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't that surprising to me though. It's cruising because it's encyclopaedic. The Commons crowd, I think, didn't see the usefulness of it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --- High-artistic and much-encyclopedic. Alborzagros (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support has encyclopaedic value. --Laitche (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bluebells ICM, Ashridge Estate, 2015.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Origami cranes

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2015 at 01:31:15 (UTC)

Reason

Encyclopedic image that has withstood the test of time. The criticism in the previous nomination did not account for the high encyclopedic value of the image, and this image's longevity is a testament to its quality and instructional value.

Articles in which this image appears

Origami cranes (Orizuru), Thousand origami cranes, Washi, Crane (bird)

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Laitche

• Support as nominator – Pine^✉ 01:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Focus issue is still present; for a studio shot, there shouldn't be any OOF areas. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Crisco 1492 where are the subjects out of focus? I don't see any problems. --Pine^✉ 06:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Where the wings meet in the middle. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Crisco 1492 Upon very close inspection, I see what you mean, but I don't think that in any way detracts from the encyclopedic value of this image. If someone puts up a better image (which they haven't in at least seven years) then we can do a D&R later. I think that this image is quite good enough as it is. (: --Pine^✉ 06:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Once my translation project is done, I'll see what I can do. Mind, I'd use a black background like this. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheomseongdae

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2015 at 03:29:03 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image of an important monument. It is featured on the Arabic Wikipedia.

Articles in which this image appears

Cheomseongdae, History of science and technology in Korea, National Treasures of South Korea, 647

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Space/Understanding

Creator

Zsinj

• Support as nominator – Blorgy555 (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- Looks good to me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose High EV, but soft focus on top, uninteresting light and too much clutter in the background for my taste. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this alt any better? Blorgy555 (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with Slaunger about the focus issue at the top - almost blurred. I can't see what we'd ever do about the background tho? It is what it is... gazhiley 07:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt and strike previous vote - Alt is better quality, less distracting background... Nice... gazhiley 18:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-Jobas (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Alt appears to be leaning backwards. Is that real, or a trick of perspective? 81.132.196.225 (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Either Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Korea-Gyeongju-Cheomseongdae-02.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Only the alt has enough support for promotion. Also added the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture instead. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viborg Katedralskole

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2015 at 06:51:35 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, high resolution HDR panorama, good light and composition.

Articles in which this image appears

Viborg Katedralskole, Hack Kampmann, Viborg, Denmark

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Slaunger

• Support as nominator – Slaunger (talk) 06:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - The shadows are too distracting for me to give full support. Otherwise the technical quality is excellent. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as on Commons. High quality, high resolution image of the subject. -- Colin°^Talk 07:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose As per Chris Woodrich, but leaning more towards oppose, as I'd prefer a slightly elevated view to minimise impact of the wall that runs in front of the building - this would also remove the shadow impact to an extent. I'm not saying massively high up, just maybe level with the top of the wall so we can see the extent of it... Standing on a car roof or back of a van would be sufficient... Can be easily re-taken IMO so I lean towards Oppose... gazhiley 07:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • gazhiley: Thanks for your review. The photo cannot be easily retaken at a viewpoint from a car or van as then you would be further back and the trees surrounding the school would obstruct the view. And obviously a car or van on the football field (which is in a through 2 m down) in front would not be allowed and only worsen the problem. The photo is based on a row of 8 photos in portrait format each taken with three different exposures using an ordinary tripod in its most erected position. If I had gone to extremes and brought a ladder, I would not have had the mechanical stability needed to take such a shot and in order to avoid parallax errors. It is taken at the most optimal possible viewpoint reachable with normal amateur equipment. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Slaunger, I disagree that the photo can easily be retaken from a higher viewpoint. Most photographs of buildings would benefit from an elevated viewpoint but this is rarely possible in practice, short of hiring a cherry picker. It should not be used as a reason to oppose, any more than "would be better if you had Zeiss glass" is a reasonable oppose. gazhiley, standing on a car roof with a tripod, apart from being utterly ridiculous, would lower the wall by about one brick wrt the building behind it. I'm concerned with these reviews that en:FP is merely an armchair photographer forum, where one can find faults and offer ill-considered "advice" rather than somewhere that is concerned with celebrating encyclopaedically excellent images of article subjects. -- Colin°^Talk 09:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have to agree with Slaunger and Colin. Might be nice to have, but it's not feasible. Slaunger's suggestion at the Commons nomination (come back at a slightly later time) would have probably been best. My Thomas Parr Monument image would have found its way here if I'd been able to wait just half an hour. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the basis that I see your points composition wise Slaunger & Colin, I retract my vote and objection... However, please do not cast any unjust insinuations about this forum and it's inhabitants (although I guess it's aimed firmly in my direction in this particular case)... Personally I like to think that although I cannot afford a good enough camera to take the sort of photographs that appear here, I know enough about what I am talking about to be able to contribute... Please feel free to check my history, and the numerous pictures I have voted on... In more cases than not the points I've raised have been supported by others, and I doubt I hold enough weight around here for that to be based on anything other than that what I'm saying makes sense... I admit that isn't always the case, as this particular nomination shows... But given the annoyance I am currently feeling at this particular insinuation I will withdraw my vote rather than amend it... gazhiley 21:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • gazhiley, well this example clearly shows you don't necessarily "know enough about what [you are] talking about" and should consider more carefully what you write. How about just judging the image rather than lecturing Slaunger on how to take a better photo. While some advice from experts is useful at times, it is way to easy to end up judging an image by how one thinks it could be improved, rather than simply for what it is. I was hoping more for contrition than annoyance from you, a reaction that suggests you don't quite get how offensive was your ignorant suggestion and comment about how easy such an image is to make. -- Colin°^Talk 13:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • To Clarify, although I agreed with both points of views, the insinuations I referred to were from Colin not Slaunger... Apols to Slaunger that that wasn't clear... gazhiley 11:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Shadows, composition. --PetarM (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • PetarM: Thanks for your review. May I ask what you find is improvable in the composition? -- Slaunger (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Outward shadows in all front. Too many trees on side...very wide compo which is not made from the centre make it "leaning". I would crop from both sides to get rid of some trees.--PetarM (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • PetarM: Thanks for explaining what you meant. I think I will leave the crop as is, as I find the building would be too crammed if cropped more on the sides leaving it too little space to breathe within the frame. I do not quite understand what you mean with '...which is not made from the centre make it "leaning"' as the composition is perfectly centered, but maybe I misunderstand you. For me the trees are also important as they frame the entire area and help you understand the origin of the shadows in the foreground. With the sun almost directly from behind I get the most even illumination of the subject without too much shadows from the protruding buildings. By taking it in the morning, when this is fulfilled I also get soft, pleasant light. The tradeoff is the shadows in the foreground. If I move close to get rid of the foreground shadows I move down into a two meter depression, which will spoil the view to the inner yard behind the columns. If I crop the shadows I will ruin a nice rule-of-thirds composition vertically. I think that for a neoclassical building where symmetry is an important architectural element it is important to be rigid in the composition. Nevermind, I respect you opinion and view on this, and I do not expect you to further respond to my long and ongoing ramblings over this - for me nearly ideal - representation of the subject. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Slaunger Why not to respond, if putting minus i feel obligated. OK, sometimes i see ridicilous small angles or unequal distances even at thumb. That will left you techincal drawing for 4 years. Where 1 mm was like 1 cm, and missed degree of angle A LOT. I saw that earlier, but i dont grade all photos. It was very obvious to me its more from left side of centre. When longer lines arent correlated, they seems like to lean. Here is one proof of it...i will erase it after observing it. --PetarM (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • PetarM Thanks for taking your time to illustrate the asymmetries in the crop-out you have uploaded and annotated on flickr! You do have a valid observation there. I am just not sure how I could have solved it as the setup is not entirely symmetrical. My main focus was to have the statue between the pillars alligned with the middle of the front door. Had I instead aimed at making the distances you have marked equally large by moving the viewpoint very slightly to the south (left, when facing the facade), the statue would have been very noticeably misaligned relative to the center door. I think more noticeably misaligned that the unequal distances you have annotated. But I agree it is sometimes amazing how ridiculously small misalignments you can spot in thumb when you are trained for it. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Nothing technically wrong with pic., but (sorry) I too find the viewpoint / composition rather staid and bland. (Perhaps some human presence on the playing field would help?) Also, the brief article devotes only the last two paragraphs to the structure – which seems to be the raison d'être for this particular photo. EV? Sca (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Godhulii 1985 (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-Jobas (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Stunning quality and detail. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Viborg Katedralskole Symmetrical.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Added image to Places/Panorama instead. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The interior of Brompton Oratory

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2015 at 17:34:49 (UTC)

Reason

It shows the interior of Brompton Oratory, a large Neo-Classical Italianate church in London, in high resolution from an aesthetic angle and with a wide angle view to get as much of the interior as possible. I visited this church a number of times previously and was never entirely happy with the photos I took (dull lighting, people moving around, etc), but I'm finally happy with the result of this one.

Articles in which this image appears

Brompton Oratory

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator – Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good choice. Brandmeister^talk 18:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Maybe I would have sacrificed a bit of the field of view to avoid some of the extreme geometrical distortions at the sides, but it is a tradeoff, and I respect your choice. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's always a trade off, and some people accept the wide angle distortions better than others. I think it's nice to be able to show the full width of the pews, and although I could have cropped some off the top, I think it's all of the glass dome or none at all, and if the latter, it introduces its own compromises in the composition. Sometimes having a fixed width lens is simpler. You simply take a photo with the focal length available to you. With stitching, you have an angle of view limited only by your imagination and the hard limits of rectilinear perspective, so it's harder to decide on the ideal framing. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I see what you mean. It is difficult to see how it could be cropped with a more narrow field of view without making it a 'bad' crop. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For those interested, here's a photosphere that I took at the same time from the middle of the church. Gives you the full immersive feel of the church. It's a shame that we don't have a way of viewing these on-Wiki currently. It's something that I'm hoping will change in the near future as I'm uploading a number of them in anticipation of them being useful. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, having the capability to show the photosphere like that would be great as it is a much better way to surf this huge field of view. One thing that amazes me in the photosphere is how you can look down and not see a tripod? How did you do that? It is really cool. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Magic! ;-) No, it's actually as simple as moving the tripod a metre or or so to the side and tilting the camera down at an angle, pointing at the patch previously occupied by the tripod. You then tell PTGui (or whatever other stitching software if it supports it) to treat that image differently - in other words, to not assume it was taken from the same position. In PTGui, it's called 'viewpoint correction' (do you use PTGui? You need to enable advanced options and then go to the Optimiser tab, the option is there). If the floor is flat, it transforms it geometrically using the control points. The only potential problem with that is that reflections on the floor look rather different from another angle! And you have to mask out the areas that aren't the floor, because you can't transform anything that isn't a two dimensional surface. So I masked out the seating around it. Simple as that really. It's a fiddly job, but the result is worth the trouble. We have a number of equirectangular images on Commons (currently unviewable as photospheres though), but very few are done 'professionally' like this one. The tripod remains and looks a bit ugly. The need for significant post-processing work means that it will always be a bit difficult for regular Commons contributors. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Diliff: Yes, I use PTgui Pro, but I did not know you could do this trick with a single 'repair' image. Thanks for the hint! -- Slaunger (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-Jobas (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Rich detail. Sca (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I like the original upload better [10], it has my support !vote. (and why does everyone add an exclamation mark before !vote ?) Bammesk (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a question I've asked, too. Only answer I got was, everybody's doing it. Silly, IMO. Sca (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as above. But man, that photosphere is very well done, I wonder if we will have a wikipedia of the future where there exists photospheres of the interiors of famous buildings... I prefer the sphere to the single photograph. Oh well. Mattximus (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Brompton Oratory Nave 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Un ballo in maschera

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2015 at 20:32:08 (UTC)

Reason

A nice copy of a key operatic scene from a very early score.

Articles in which this image appears

Un ballo in maschera

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Culture,_entertainment,_and_lifestyle/Theatre

Creator

lithograph by Francesco Corbetta (1815-?) after Roberto Focosi (1806-1862); restoration by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very useful and attractive. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Very nice with good EV provided by the article. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-Jobas (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Per Phil. Sca (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Giuseppe Verdi, Un Ballo in maschera, Vocal score frontispiece - restoration.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2015 at 11:16:54 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, high quality reproduction of a work which is the direct subject of a lengthy Wikipedia article. Obvious EV in illustrating Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball, and high EV on William Etty (the artist) and Charlotte Williams-Wynn (one of the two subjects).

Articles in which this image appears

Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball, William Etty, Charlotte Williams-Wynn (diarist)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Uploaded by PatHadley, original work by William Etty

• Support as nominator –  – iridescent 11:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - PatHadley, highlights are blown in the whites. Is there a chance we can get a version that's gone through less digital manipulation? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at print reproductions—including the closeups of picture detail in Art & Controversy—the highlights in the whites appear the same, so it's possible that this is an issue with the actual painting or the photography rather than with digital manipulation. (Or, since this is the "official" York Art Gallery version, it's equally possible that this file is the source of all modern prints.) – iridescent 00:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Pat's working with the York gallery right now through GLAM (see this for further details) so I'm assuming that he's the photographer in this case, or at the very least has access to the original files (TIF or Raw, I don't know what they're shooting). If it is an issue with the photography itself, hopefully it can be handled. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This version (and the one printed in Art and Controversy) was created by the Public Catalogue Foundation a few years back for BBC YourPaintings. The digital team here have just resnapped it so we will have .NEF/.TIFF files for the new photography. I should be able to get access to these soon. Would it be better if I gave a link to a dropbox or similar with these files so you guys can do any reworking? PatHadley (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case, would it be better if I withdrew this? Given the probability that Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball will be TFA on or near 1 August, this presumably wouldn't run as TFP for some time regardless, to avoid Etty-overload on the main page. – iridescent 11:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, you could withdraw it if you wanted. Pat, I think I'd trust you and the people at York more than myself in this instance. You have access to the painting, so you can tell what it looks like under different lighting conditions. Approximations end up off way too often. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case, can someone who understands FPC close this (not sure if I just hat it or if it needs to be formally closed somewhere). Given that there are four articles on William Etty currently in the DYK queue, and that there are six more of these articles already lined up for their turn at FAC, it's not like the main page is going to suffering from an Etty shortage for a while. – iridescent 16:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Living Dead

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2015 at 23:39:55 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution (HD 720px) version of this famous (and famously public domain) horror tale. We don't have any Zombies yet!

Articles in which this image appears

Night of the Living Dead

FP category for this image

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

Creator

George Romero

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nom - It looks pretty good to me, and the movie holds up surprisingly well, not a cheesy film as one might expect. Mattximus (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. There's a reason it's on so many "Best Films" lists. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Outstanding find. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as uploader. — Racconish^📥 08:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Night of the Living Dead (1968).webm --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Triton

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2015 at 04:39:23 (UTC)

Reason

This is a mosaic of Triton.

Articles in which this image appears

Triton (moon), etc.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

NASA, JPL, USGS

• Support as nominator – JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 04:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-Jobas (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Added EV? Pic is 26 years old. Sca (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This picture looks better with higher resolution. --JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 03:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please strike your !vote. You already supported this, as you were the nominator. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Ready to promote. --JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 07:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment--striking duplicate votes.--Godot13 (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valles Marineris

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2015 at 04:51:51 (UTC)

Reason

Some missing parts of the planet has been retouched. The edges of the sphere were partially pixelated, and it's also corrected. The backround is inlarged, because previous crop was too tight.

Articles in which this image appears

Valles Marineris, etc.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

NASA, USGS, uploaded by Lošmi

• Support as nominator – JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 04:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-Jobas (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question So what are we doing about this featured pictures? Doesn't make sense to have both. (Alt posted to the right). Mattximus (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The picture is okay, not bad. --JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 03:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please strike your !vote. You already supported this, as you were the nominator. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Goodbye FP alternate version. Hello FP original version. --JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 08:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Again, JCP you have now supported this nomination 3 times - please strike 2 of your votes... gazhiley 11:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment--Striking duplicate votes.--Godot13 (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]