Oppose – Sorry, please find a picture where the entire body of the monkey is visible. This is not a picture of an individual notable animal like Bobbie the Wonder Dog and Gua. --MarvellousSpider-Man 02:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because that image, also taken by me, was not voted FP on Commons, whereas the one I have nominated was. Naturally I think both are excellent! Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Nice colours and bokeh. Do you know the gender? I would've assumed it's male because of its bright colours, but the article says both sexes have similar colours. —Bruce1eetalk 13:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Great shot. I don't mind the tail being hidden behind a branch here, because it's a very small percentage of the bird (and you can still tell the blue feathers are visible from behind). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support – What's lacking in subject's tail is more than made up for by that big bright beak. Sca (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Rather uninteresting "advertising" photo, not among "Wikipedia's best"... --Janke | Talk 06:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per extensive precedent and this being a good quality image on its own. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I'm mystified as to the voting patterns for FP, but this is too boring for me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How are you mystified by it? Janke !voted as I'd expect, given a history of putting greater emphasis on aesthetics and technical quality than pure encyclopedic value. I am a more documentarian photographer myself, and I have a history of nominating files such as this, so my support shouldn't be surprising. Matt's also tended to emphasize EV over pure aesthetics in his voting history. The current !voter pool is quite small, but most people are relatively predictable. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was mystified that my woodpecker and weaver were ignored. Both added to the articles and the weaver particularly has high EV. So I cannot see how this photo has greater merit. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're talking about the lack of commentary, En-Wiki's FPC is in the middle of a six or seven month dry spell, and many of the most frequent contributors are retired or semi-retired. With the small !voter pool that's left, it doesn't take much for two or three people to be too busy to check in a certain time frame and thus stall a nomination. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Excellent EV. This is a perfect encyclopedic photograph of the object in question. Remember this is not wikicommons, these pictures are meant to inform, not to wow. Mattximus (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - It's another Evan-Amos image. Always good to see his crispy images of gaming consoles. GamerPro64 01:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Like the other Evan-Amos FPs, this one is of high technical quality and is very helpful for illustrating the subject in articles. I almost wish that someone (ideally him) would just nominate most/all of his stuff, one by one, since they're all of consistently high quality and usefulness. --PresN 14:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Promoted File:PlayStation-Vita-1101-FL.jpgBammesk (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2017 at 01:47:55 (UTC)
Original – Diagram of a chicken egg in its ninth day of incubation showing all four extraembryonic membranes along with the embryo, the air pocket, and the shell
Reason
Scalable vector diagram is raster-free, fonts are all correctly sized and have alternate font family, file passes W3C validation, renders correctly in Firefox as well as Google Chrome and is expected to render correctly in any browser, image has been added to several articles (listed below) for more than seven days and remains in each; I also think the diagram has improved a great deal since my previous nomination of it, see for yourself if you like
Hm. Okay. Consider it done. (...Would have been a lot nicer, though, if you had just said, "Could you correct the spelling of 'albumin' to 'albumen'? Because I think this is a great diagram and it just needs a small correction to get my total support!" "Oppose" makes it seem to me that you oppose the nomination. Which makes me think I am wasting my time by making your correction. Not that you are wrong, of course, only that you could be nicer about the mistake. I am a volunteer graphic artist— please don't forget that, okay? I will make the correction.) KDS4444 (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm a man of few words, contrary to covfefe. ;-) --Janke | Talk 15:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't eaten a single egg since this diagram first was nominated. Sca (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sca: I know, me too— my diagram of the scallop ruined the appetite of a number of people I know who used to like having them as tapas. --KDS4444 (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment – The unidentified bright area on the top left of Vitellus is large enough and pronounced enough to be a distinct feature on its own. If it is just a visual aid, it is too pronounced. imo. Bammesk (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, now it looks like another air pocket. --Janke | Talk 15:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, plus a few other minor mods I've been considering. How 'bout now? KDS4444 (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support – though I prefer a somewhat brighter (less contrasty) embryo, also it may be better if the Vitellus label-line was angled and didn't go through the air pocket, just saying. Bammesk (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One more, Allantois label-line terminates on the shadow. Bammesk (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bammesk: I totally missed your comment above before the voting period was over, but I have now gone back and fixed this— thank you for pointing this out! This is exactly the kind of thing I would never have noticed myself but which should have been done, and without your comment, would never have taken place (probably). So my thanks, again, for that! KDS4444 (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - high quality, encyclopedic diagram. Kaldari (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2017 at 21:14:36 (UTC)
Original – A Yacare caiman in the Pantanal, Brazil. Although these reptiles look like dangerous crocodiles, it's actually quite safe to swim near them. This is just as well as there are about 10 million in the Pantanal.
Reason
Illustrates the article well. Doesn't show the whole animal as that would mean the interesting parts would have less impact. FP on Commons.
Support – Bammesk (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC) Charles: some of your noms are at iso 800, what do you think of burst mode for stability?Reply[reply]
Comment: I use ISO800 as my default to allow a 1/500 shutter speed (this was a windy day so 1/1000 was needed. My Canon 70D does have a built in low light 4-shot burst mode which is processed in the camera, but for hand-held macro work there is too much movement. I've tried many burst options, but none work! Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Reply[reply]
question I like this image, but voters here seem to only like images that are the main one in the article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: Admittedly, I'm coming back after a six-month absence, but historically, being further down hasn't been a problem as long as the image is significant to or in some way uniquely illustrates the subject. Take Aida (opera), which has - if I'm counting right - five separate featured pictures, each illustrating a different aspect. Adam Cuerden(talk) 01:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've never expressed such a view. Mind, the headshot is great in this case, but unless we get a bigger version it's not FP-able. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Josh was talking about the use of the image in a gallery; that's quite a bit different than having running text illustrated by an image. Use in galleries tends not to be considered enough EV for FP. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suggest add year (1969) to caption. Sca (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This is a great photo with strong EV: as well as showing Hamiliton's achievement in an interesting way, it also depicts how young she was for this role. Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How old were programmers in this era? I would be surprised if 33 wasn't a common age. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure, but to be a team leader for an important part of a flagship national project in a major (and rather hierarchical) agency it seems pretty young, especially for a woman in the 1960s. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
comment The picture's OK, but low EV. It does not add 'significant encyclopedic value to an article'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Up to the viewer, Charles. --Mile (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It's very nicely photographed, but the rotation feels really random. I realise the centre figure and the outside "spikes" don't quite match in rotation, but couldn't one or the other be set up to a sensible vertical symmetry? Adam Cuerden(talk) 02:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I feel that this could be a little better contextualised (what are we looking at here? Who created the original work? How old is it?) and perhaps a better explanation could be given concerning what the image adds to the article; the article is very heavily illustrated, and I worry that this is just another gallery image. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose – Agree with Josh that there seems little point in featuring this geometric device on the Main Page, with Charles that it poses little EV, and with Adam that the orientation of the device is perplexing. Sca (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It's a quality image, but I don't think it passes core criteria 'Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I agree you can nominate the infobox image taken in daylight used in the same article. MarvellousSpider-Man 12:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Contours of the building more clearly highlighted owing to the lighting. Infobox image offered as an alternative is too tightly cropped — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose – Per Spider-Man. Plus, the building front below the portico appears overexposed due to lighting. Sca (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually both the pictures are not perfect. The daylight picture has a fountain blocking the view. It has trees on it's sides, but the night picture has no trees! MarvellousSpider-Man 15:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Evening shot is more appealing for me than the daylight one, and it's a quality image on Commons. Brandmeistertalk 14:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Comment – Swiss tranquility. Xcllnt detail, nice comp – but as Mattximus notes below article is very stubby. Sca (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose – EV, criteria 5 "helps readers to understand an article", good image but there isn't anything to understand, article says nothing about the station, only that it exists. Bammesk (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you, but I supported it anyway because what little article there is can be improved, however there is not much more I can ask of a picture of this station. Mattximus (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hence the benefit of voting / consensus. I see your point. Bammesk (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This is a well executed photo which does a very good job of showing the size of the station, how it operates and its location. Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2017 at 14:07:16 (UTC)
Original – Longnose batfish on Bari Reef, approximately 30 ft. underwater; a rare occurence on Bari Reef in the Dutch Caribbean, island of Bonaire, BES Islands
Reason
Close profile shot of a longnose batfish underwater in a natural reef environment.
Comment – Target is basically a stub. Sca (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nowhere in the featured picture criteria does it say what the size of the target article should be, so long as the picture helps the reader understand the article, which in this case I believe it does. —Bruce1eetalk 17:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concur that this image will help the reader understand the topic.• • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 06:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Not as sharp or high resolution as I would like, but I think the fact that it is underwater prevents it from excelling in those respects. Mattximus (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Marvellous Spider-Man, good suggestion. Pbsouthwood is an experienced diver, but I'm not sure about his knowledge of u/w photog. May I also respectfully suggest that you review this link to save some time as it may help address some of your questions. There are also comments from experienced u/w divers commenting there. May I also add that I've taught u/w photography for many years (as an advanced open water & NITROX instructor for both NAUI and SSI), if that even matters? Another option is to research Google Images for "longnose batfish" and compare. Atsme📞📧 18:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not an expert in modern photos, but my impressions are: A. it looks very good, but, B. it's a little on the small size for such photographs. This apparently isn't a particularly small animal, so I'd have liked it a bit bigger, but underwater photography is very challenging, so I'm inclined to Weak support. Adam Cuerden(talk) 02:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adam, this particular baitfish was about 2 or 3 inches from nose to tail, and that's a rough estimate considering things appear 33% larger/closer underwater. Atsme📞📧 03:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Caveat: I am a notorious perpetrator of "swim-by shooting" photography - I record presence of organisms at a reef, without much concern about artistic value.) That said, I would be delighted to get a photo like this. Educational value is definitely high. Photo quality looks good to me - detail is clear and useful for identification purposes. I will ping Seascapeza, who is a better photographer and fairly expert on marine animals for a further opinion. • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 06:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Atsme: Ah, the max size is a lot bigger for this species, which is what I was judging by. In that case, change to SupportAdam Cuerden(talk) 21:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support as nominator – Mile (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Minimal EV for parboiled rice, photo explains nothing. Also ineligible, has not been in article for 7 days. (Image description also appears to be a promotion for a cookbook, as in the penne photo caption...) --Janke | Talk 07:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per criteria 5: Does not help the reader understand the concept of parboiled rice whatsoever. -- Veggies (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2017 at 04:08:55 (UTC)
Original – The Last Hours of Abraham Lincoln, Designed by John B. Bachelder and painted by Alonzo Chappel, this work of art depicts those who visited the dying president throughout the night and early morning of April 14–15, 1865. These people did not visit Lincoln at the same time: they could not have all fit in the small first-floor room of the Petersen House. Lincoln’s wife, Mary, is pictured in the center, lying across the president’s body. His son Robert stands in the foreground to the right of the bed. Vice President Andrew Johnson is seated at the far left.
Comment Oppose – I've never been a fan of these retrospective what-if-they-all-were-there hagiographic paintings, common in the 19th century. Due to their idealized, fanciful style, their EV is minimal. Sca (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I do think them valuable, this one is neither on the artist's page, nor does it have its own article. I think that it needs the context of its own article to add enough EV. Adam Cuerden(talk) 01:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Unsharp and very noisy in full size. --Janke | Talk 16:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose – not a good image technically. The far left side is out of focus. Bammesk (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Per Adam Cuerden, the EV is not there if this painting does not have its own page, nor is it a historical depiction of an event. Mattximus (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Per nom. I wonder if the first lead image on the main Olive baboon page is a male? If so it should be labeled to contrast this image. Mattximus (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think so, for sure, but it's not my image and the proof is not visible. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2017 at 09:19:30 (UTC)
Diet food: Penne with eggplant in yogurt-tomato sauce and basil. Dish is a part of cookbook for womens with Gestational diabetes. Cookbook written by Ana Žontar Kristanc, ISBN978-961-93983-2-6
Reason
good Quality and in-need for food photo on Wikipedia
Oppose - I really can't support a picture that is cropped on the top and right in that way. Very unnatural. Mattximus (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know, however I took a look at previously nominated food pictures and they all are not cropped in this way. I much prefer these on the right. Also it shows more than just pene, and more suitable EV on a page for this dish, no? Mattximus (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply] or
I cant belive to words like Mattximus is saying. Go check how Food photo is done, i got feeling you came here with 0% knowledge. @Marvellous if this isnt Penne, what is it ? Unless fabriqant made false Penne. I dont think you two are qualified for here. Thats problem for Wikipedia. --Mile (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This picture has Penne covered with other foods. If you nominate a picture of Rose, but use a picture of a bouquet filled with rose and other flowers. MarvellousSpider-Man 03:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - what happened to upper right corner? it doesn't look natural. Bammesk (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bammesk i darkened it a bit, since its still natural light. --Mile (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose for several reasons: Has not been in article for 7 days, replaced an image with better EV (but lower quality), appears to be a promotion for a cookbook. --Janke | Talk 08:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 02:28:21 (UTC)
Original – Suzzanna (1942–2008), an Indonesian actress best remembered today as the "Queen of Indonesian Horror". Despite the nickname, she became active in the 1950s with a comedy and held lead roles in numerous romances and thrillers.
Support per nom, great quality, and great EV. Mattximus (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support picture, however the article has uncited paragraphs. Can you fix the article? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Great candidate. I agree that the article would benefit from a few minutes of cleaning! Josh Milburn (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - lovely on all counts. Atsme📞📧 01:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
_juvenile_head.jpg)
.jpg)
_2.jpg)
_underside.JPG)
Comment: I use ISO800 as my default to allow a 1/500 shutter speed (this was a windy day so 1/1000 was needed. My Canon 70D does have a built in low light 4-shot burst mode which is processed in the camera, but for hand-held macro work there is too much movement. I've tried many burst options, but none work! Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC) 
.jpg)
_with_juvenile.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
_male_nest_building.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_--_trackbed_near_Lake_Eyre_South,_South_Australia.jpg)