Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 16:26:15 (UTC)
Original – Map of the northern part and parts of the southern parts of the America, from the mouth of the Saint Laurent River to the Island of Cayenne,with the new discoveries of the Mississipi River, by Claude Bernou
Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uneven lighting. Can be fixed, though, either by photoshopping or reshooting. --Janke | Talk 13:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Historically interesting but, despite the file size, detail in some areas isn't great – around the Great Lakes, for example. Sca (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Janke. lNeverCry 05:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Janke – Jobas (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 03:44:12 (UTC)
Original – Betsy DeVos Senate Confirmation Vote Tie Broken by Vice President Mike Pence
Reason
Video documents a historic vote in the United States Senate for two main reasons: first Cabinet nominee confirmed by a tie vote in United States history and was the first tie vote broken by a Vice President in the Senate since 2008 during the Bush administration. Due to this uncommon action in the Senate, this is to my knowledge the only video on Wikipedia of this situation.
Oppose – Per above. --Janke | Talk 18:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom. lNeverCry 05:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above – Jobas (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree minimal EV - this gives no further information than a written statement of the fact, takes longer to watch, and is certainly not amongst Wikipedia's best work. |→ Spaully~talk~ 20:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I see where you're coming from, and I'm always a fan of "firsts" and other political trivia, but nothing all that interesting happens over the course of this lengthy clip. We see lots of stuffy people milling about for a full minute (during which time I could've done something enjoyable like listen to the sax intro of "Careless Whisper", plus had time to throw some popcorn in the microwave), then the VP matter-of-factly says he's doing exactly what everybody expected him to do. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 10:09:20 (UTC)
Original – A satirical political cartoon reflecting America's imperial ambitions following quick and total victory in the Spanish American War of 1898.
Reason
This is one of the images from the early days of the age of American Imperialism. The political cartoon in question illustrates the desire of the American Public to see then President of the United StatesWilliam McKinley get a canal constructed across Central America. Eventually, this Central American Canal would be constructed in Panama, resulting in the creation of the Panama Canal we have today.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 10:18:04 (UTC)
Original – Caricature showing Uncle Sam lecturing four children labelled Philippines (who appears similar to Philippine leader Emilio Aguinaldo), Hawaii, Porto[sic] Rico and Cuba in front of children holding books labelled with various U.S. states. In the background are an American Indian holding a book upside down, a Chinese boy at the door and a black boy cleaning a window. Originally published on p. 8-9 of the January 25, 1899 issue of Puck magazine.
Reason
Here be a political cartoon from the early days of American Imperialism depicting the eponymous Uncle Sam as a school teacher attempting to pound to the politically acceptable version of U.S. History into a group of children representing recent U.S. Political conquests in Central and South America as well as parts of the Asia Pacific region. Racial and ethnic stereotypes are played to in an attempt to illustrate the greater good that can be found in the United States' decision to assume control of the countries and peoples in question.
Louis Dalrymple (1866-1905), artist; Puck magazine, publisher
Support as nominator – TomStar81 (Talk) 10:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These cartoons don't seem to be core to the articles they appear in. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: I assume by the above comment you are referring to FPC point #5 (Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article)? If so then then that would be true of the use of the image in the articles Puck (magazine) and Territory of Hawaii, however with regards to American Imperialism the toons do demonstrate the mindset of the U.S. with regards to white mans burden and the idea of racial and ethnic supremacy at the time, along with the U.S. can do attitude before the 1960s and the counter culture ideologue really took root in the country. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very interesting cartoon. --Gnosis (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Very nice, but the branch gets in the way of the bird, and as such the EV is a bit lacking. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't agree at all. To show the feet/chest of any bird with good bokeh you 100% have to have a branch in the way. The alternative view, of the back, is of equivalent EV. Not better, not worse. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'm not bothered by the branch per se. He has to sit on something, although a different angle might have shown more subject. The detail is good, but I wonder about the EV of an immature individual. Sca (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many people would not know this is an immature. As this is the best picture of the smallest bird in the world, I think there is little doubt it has EV. Of course the photo was not taken by a favoured photographer. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The photo was not taken by a favoured photographer." And what is that supposed to mean? Compare this photograph to the existing FPs of birds in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds. How many have the feet obscured by the branch? Some have tails partially obscured (including two of the FPs I took). None that I've seen have the feet almost completely obscured. The angle of the branch is also a lot more drastic than what we have previously featured.
I'm not saying it is a bad photograph. It deserves its spot on Commons' FP list. I'm just saying that the EV is hurt by the branch being in the way of the bird. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My comment "The photo was not taken by a favoured photographer." related to the Picture of the Day page which states "the picture of the day is generally scheduled by one editor (currently Crisco 1492)" As far as I know, I've never had one of my FPs selected as a POTD, @Crisco 1492:, though I did ask you what the process is. As to your comment about the branch, you refer to your two FPs: . These seem very similar compositions to mine and you are comparing pictures of large birds in a zoo with a picture of a tiny bird in the wild. You suggested I look at existing FPs and so I have. You have selected over 40 FPs by the talented, and obviously favoured, photographer JJHarrison to be POTD over the last two years. Many of the these images have the bird in water, with no feet visible. For you to say that the "feet almost completely obscured" in my photo is a strange thing to say when the chest feathers of this hummingbird do obscure much of the feet. And, as I'm sure you know, hummingbirds can only cling onto things, they cannot just stand on their feet on a flat surface like most birds. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You think POTD is a game of favorites, and are accusing me of bias because of it? It roughly follows a first in, first out system (roughly as there is some wiggle room; I wouldn't run ten paintings in a row, for example). Your involvement with the English Wikipedia's FPC process started, to the best of my recollection, in mid-to-late 2015. Right now I'm scheduling from Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs/48, which includes images promoted in late 2014/early 2015. We haven't reached your nominations yet. Hell, even my own early FPs just started coming out in June (photos taken in June 2014). There is no bias against any particular editor in the scheduling, and given my previous support for your photographs at both Commons and En-Wiki, I'm surprised you leaped to that conclusion.
As I said, some have parts of the tails covered. That includes the two of the three FP bird photographs I've taken (the other was a portrait), as well as images by other photographers such as File:Phalacrocorax carbo Vic.jpg and File:Leucippus fallax.jpg. The difference is in the size of the branch relative to the bird, as well as its angle.
Yes, the bird is tiny. I get that. The problem is simply that the branch is distracting, a fact that is exacerbated by the angle from which the photograph was taken. I don't get why you're taking such offense to this oppose, considering two editors at the Commons nomination made the same point. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my rant. It was late at night. I had not realised we were so far behind and I had just seen your POTD dancing images selected for November and December 2016. Why not filter a few more out so that we can catch up? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. The queue is generally a year and a half to two years on en-Wiki. It's an effect of the FIFO system we've been using since POTD was first started. But if you have anything you'd really like to see on the main page, just let me know, or pick a date for yourself. You can write the blurb, or I can get it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - intervening twig is not ideal but I will say that it almost adds a sort of three-dimensional appeal that many telephoto images lack. I respectfully disagree that it hinders the illustrative and educational value of the image, as no significant features of the bird are obscured. Sharpness and colors are very good. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't think that the branch is that much of a problem; the image is good quality and the bird is still clearly visible. I also think that the picture has good encyclopaedic value because it is by far the best picture we have of the species. N Oneemuss (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Tomer T (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This posed, 46-year-old studio photo has been in the infobox at Shirley Bassey for quite some time. What's the impetus for nominating it now? Sca (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Tomer just found it? Maybe nobody else thought of nominating it before now? Why does a picture of an artist at the height of her career need an impetus? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 5. Sca (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a non-answer. I ask "Why does a picture of an artist at the height of her career need an impetus?" and you simply point to the EV criterion without explaining how "a picture of an artist at the height of her career" lacks EV. At least Janke is pointing to something concrete that this image lacks. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand where this question comes from. Yeah, I just found it. Tomer T (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I'd rather see a photo of her performing, instead of this slightly awkward expression... --Janke | Talk 19:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An English-language description would be a good addition to the image page. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 20:23:15 (UTC)
Original (watermark removed) – HR 8799 harbors four super-Jupiters orbiting with periods that range from decades to centuries. Motion interpolate was used on 7 images of HR 8799 taken from the Keck Telescope over 7 years to create this image. Read more at http://www.manyworlds.space/index.php/2017/01/24/a-four-planet-system-in-orbit-directly-imaged-and-remarkable/. Credits: Video making & motion interpolation: Jason Wang, Data analysis: Christian Marois, Orbit determination: Quinn Konopacky, Data Taking: Bruce Macintosh, Travis Barman, Ben Zuckerman
Very cool. But do I see some matting or something in the full size version? Is that avoidable? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I contemplated nominating this myself. --Janke | Talk 09:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's okay here, but in the article it would be a problem. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another instance of spiting the face. If someone can remove the credits without affecting the useful data in any way that would fine, but there's no reason to restrict its usage just because its creators' names are shown. — Huntster (t@c) 04:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for extraordinary EV and just the general awesome factor. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jobas (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I rather like this animation. — Huntster (t@c) 04:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until watermarks are removed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chris: In this case, all the info (date, scale & creators) is a part of the image, and Wiki guidelines state: "Exceptions may be made for historic images when the credit or title forms an integral part of the composition." IMO, that applies to this image. --Janke | Talk 07:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is the credit an integral part of the composition? If this were a painting with the artist's signature or something, sure, but a digital signature on a GIF? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a derivative work published by and credited to individuals, not an organization, and no peer review. I think any manipulation (including name removal) is inappropriate. Bammesk (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As I said above, the in-image credits are contrary to the image use policy. I'm really not sure I buy the arguments that are being made in favour of the presence of the watermark. What is exceptional about the watermark in this image? Josh Milburn (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until watermarks are removed. Mattximus (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is so important an image, that I edited the watermark, but left the date & size info. Satisfied? Note that this is now an OGV file, which needs to be handled differently than a GIF. If someone can convert it to a "looping" GIF, go ahead! --Janke | Talk 22:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Janke. Converted file is File:HR 8799 Orbiting Exoplanets (no credits).gif. However, I will say that I don't like that the file has been through so many conversions: From YouTube WebM → GIF → credits edited → OGV → GIF. There is loss to the quality. The creditless version is there for use, but I would still push for the original version that suffers as little loss as possible. — Huntster (t@c) 00:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do I like the multiple conversions, but I have no way of editing a video gif - had to convert it to a standard video codec, and then after editing in Final Cut, further convert it to OGV, since Wiki doesn't accept h.264, MP4 and the like. But in this case, the slight loss of resolution really doesn't matter, since the original file is already quite fuzzy. --Janke | Talk 07:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oppose – Obviously, the lamppost could easily be cropped out. Alas, Laupa is little more than a stub. Sca (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cropping out the lamp post would unbalance the picture. Cropping the whole thing by the same amount would lead to the crop being too tight. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pix don't have to be symmetrical. But I agree with Janke below that a better composition could be achieved from a somewhat different vantage point. Sca (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I never said symmetrical. I said balance. This photograph's composition was clearly intended to be symmetrical, hence the question of balance. Balance can also include non-symmetrical but aesthetically pleasing components such as the composition of land, water, and sky in File:John Constable - Wivenhoe Park, Essex - Google Art Project.jpg. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they don't necessarily have to be "balanced" either. Sca (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 1, point 3: "... [an FP] has good composition...". If you know of a photograph or painting where a lack of balance contributes positively to composition, please link it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you calling me unbalanced? Sca (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not only because of the post, but for the branches, too. Easy to shoot a better composition. --Janke | Talk 07:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - per lamppost, too bad it wasn't taken one step forward. Mattximus (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 03:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Image does a poor job of illustrating the Venetian Lagoon. Where's the shore? Where's the inlet? All we see are the islands of Venice and a small section of the barrier island (but it's cut off so we don't know it's an island). Theseare much better true-colour images that show what the lagoon looks like. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, EtienneDolet only added the image to the article before the nomination, and the image page lacks an English description, so it fails FPCC #5 and #7. I've also corrected the creator credit in the nom (couldn't verify accuracy as source link is dead). --Paul_012 (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Paul_012. Sorry, but it's not even apparent at first glance that it shows a city. Sca (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: Well, the picture primarily depicts the lagoon and I nominated it under that subject. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If it's supposed to show the lagoon, it should be a wider view. Now, it just looks like an island. --Janke | Talk 07:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2017 at 17:36:56 (UTC)
Original – A 3-valved Bb flugelhorn (Yamaha model YFH-436G).ALT1 – JPG version for on-wiki display
Reason
A great studio photograph of a flugelhorn. As part of the project Wiki Loves Music, I have been evaluating many musical instrument pictures on the projects and this recent image donation by the manufacturer is by far one of the best musical instrument images we have.
Support as nominator – Gnom (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for the OTRS permission to come in (still in process, according to the template). Also, for the image proper: a bit of space around the flugelhorn is best. The crop is much too close. Also, for better display on Wikipedia, a JPG version is necessary (Wikipedia applies sharpening to downsampled JPG thumbnails, but not PNG or TIF). I'll get the edit, but I am waiting for the OTRS permission to be finalized. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chris Woodrich, the permission is under way and has already been given for the woodwinds, see e.g. this example. Please feel free to convert the image to the correct format and add some white space if you have the time. Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've done an edit. Just waiting for OTRS confirmation. I don't doubt the permission is on its way. I'd just rather the OTRS ticket was already checked before this was nominated. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2017 at 00:12:26 (UTC)
Original – Russian Imperial family - members of the Romanovs, the last imperial family of Russia including: seated (left to right) Marie, Queen Alexandra, Czar Nicholas II, Anastasia, Alexei (front), and standing (left to right), Olga and Tatiana. This image was taken in 1914, three years before the Emperor and family were killed.
Reason
Photographed here is the last generation of the Russian Empire's royal family. In March 1917, then Emperor Nicholas II was overthrown following massive, widespread demonstrations against the Royal Family. Later that year the Bolsheviks, the Marxist/Lenin supporting branch of the provisional government, had Nicholas and his family executed to prevent them from falling into the hands of the "whites" who supported the restoration of the monarch in Russia (broadly construed). Although its has been conclusively proven that all members photographed here had been killed in 1917, rumors persisted for decades that Anastasia had survived the brutal massacre that exterminated the Romonov Royal bloodline.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2017 at 01:07:59 (UTC)
Original – The Crown of the Andes, a votive crown originally made for a larger than life-size statue of the Virgin Mary in the Cathedral of Popayán, Colombia. It was made between the 16th and 18th centuries. It contains 450 emeralds, including some that were purportedly taken from the captured Inca Emperor Atahualpa (1497–1533).
Reason
The Met has started licensing their photographs of PD works with a CC-0 license. Among the thousands of images included is this beaut, of the Crown of the Andes. High quality, good EV.
Comment Minor caption issue - article says 16th century, not 17th. TSP (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Museum says "Ca. 1660 (diadem) and ca. 1770 (arches)". Source for the 16th century says "example of the work of 17th-century Spanish goldsmiths" but also that "the little cross supported by the orb, the earliest part of the confection, probably dates from the 16th century." Sources seem to agree on this being a 17th-century work, despite the oldest piece presumably dating to a year before the 17th century. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Even that source says it dates partly from the 16th century. It just seems problematic to me that we have an article caption saying "It dates, at least partly, to the 17th century" for the lead image of an article whose lead describes the item as "Originating — at least partly — in the 16th century". While these aren't technically contradictory, I'd suggest that one needs revising; and that it would be better to achieve consensus at the article rather than in an image caption. Personally I'd still support the "at least partly to the 16th century" wording - the point is that the crown is traditionally dated to the 16th century, but Christies say it only dates partly from then - i.e. everyone agrees it has an origin in the 16th century, but not exactly how much of the current structure dates back to then. I also think this phrasing would normally be used to give the earliest date - it would be technically true to say "The Tower of London, which dates at least partly from the 21st century", but I don't think anyone would. TSP (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Crown of the Virgin of the Immaculate Conception, known as the Crown of the Andes MET DP365520.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 03:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2017 at 12:15:25 (UTC)
Original – This female giant kingfisher (Megaceryle maxima), having speared a tilapia, smashes it against a post to break its spline so it can swallow it.
Reason
composite showing how this kingfisher handles a big catch. FP on Commons.
Support – Per Chris. (Now, where's the Pepto?) Sca (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jobas (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The left image is narrower than the others, can that be remedied? The backgrounds are different, is that because of change in camera position? Bammesk (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Left hand image sorted. Yes, the boat I was in was moving. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Looking at this other image: [1] things seem to be perpendicular, so I wonder if there is excessive software manipulation (i.e. adjustment) in the horizontal direction? (I don't mean vertical perspective adjustment).Bammesk (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC) . . . The painted areas on asphalt are perfectly square, so that doesn't look like excessive manipulation. Interesting photo and subject.... Bammesk (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC) . . . Never mind, google earth shows the intersection isn't perpendicular. I am Ok with this nom, so Support. But as suggested in the commons nom I prefer something like Shibuya crossing if it was nominated. Bammesk (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the shape of the intersection; it is very distracting and confusing (see above). --Janke | Talk 20:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seems there's nothing that satisfies "EV" except birds and old money. Meets all the criteria. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an excellent photo artistically, but the composition seems somewhat cluttered for FP status. Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I like the picture too, as a work of art and symbol of culture. But the mess of overhead wires, tracks, road markings, and a different pavement coloring of the crosswalk, is very distracting. Additionally, while the diagonal crosswalk is fine, the image is off-centered, with there being slightly more of the road to the right of the crosswalk's top right corner than to the left of the crosswalk's bottom left corner. I wouldn't oppose it—it has merit on its own—but I'll leave the discussion to other !voters. epicgenius (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Janke. For the purpose of illustrating pedestrian crossings in general, I'd prefer an image of a regular intersection with right angles. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionTwo things. Would the image be better without the tree on the right? Second, and apologies if I'm wrong, but is there some issue with the water where I've annotated the photo? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Clone out the "levitating" tree top at right! However, use the original, not the brightened version, since there are quite a bit of compression artifacts in the water, already. I'll check in later and see if it's supportable... --Janke | Talk 14:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support after the fix. --Janke | Talk 07:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid - it's a decent representational picture of the subject; but compression artefacts are quite visible even downsized; lighting isn't amazing; and the crop seems very tight at both the bottom and the right margins (I think this was made worse by the tree removal, incidentally - I think it would be better to use a clone tool to remove this, as Janke suggested, rather than re-crop). Also, the lake seems to be known for its seasonal "vibrant cobalt blue" colour, which doesn't really seem to be shown here; unless it's the other photos on the article that are misleading. Probably none of these would be a dealbreaker alone, but I'm not convinced this sits alongside the other photos in Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Landscapes. TSP (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 10:59:59 (UTC)
Original – USS Wisconsin (BB-64) Underway at sea, circa 1988-91. She is pictured here following her refit and rebuild after being recalled for duty in the 1980s as part of the US Navy's 600-ship Navy program. Official U.S. Navy Photograph, from the collections of the Naval History and Heritage Command.
Reason
Welcome to the gun show :) But seriously, this is a large image of a famous battleship that now meets size requirements and adorns a number of our pages (note I said pages, notarticles). As the last of the recommissioned battleships in the Iowa-class this photograph captures a now obsolete gunship for the last time, and as an interesting side note also happens to capture the first deployment of the Block 1 variant of the US Navy's Phalanx CIWS. Listing here for FPC consideration and asking for a small degree of leniency since the battleship in question won't be returning to the high seas.
Support as nominator – TomStar81 (Talk) 10:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This decades-old official photo appears to have led the infobox at USS Wisconsin for years. Contrast between the deck and gun turrets/superstructure isn't great. Sca (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lots of noise and other marks. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can not argue that :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another non-committal drive-by comment, but I think the scan has too much resolution relative to the available detail in the print. When you magnify at full res, it gets quite muddled and gives you the sensation of looking at a very out-of-focus image. I believe the image would actually be more useful if it were downsampled a bit... which is ironic since your last nomination more than a decade ago failed because the image was too small. :) – Juliancolton | Talk 20:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What are you drivelling about in saying "another non-committal drive-by comment"? And before rubbishing my contribution, why not read the FP guidelines that say "Images should not be downsampled" Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about you Charles. Lots of people have been making comments without declaring support or oppose, and I followed suit, not yet knowing which way I'd like to vote. Stop acting like a child at FPC, please. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You made the comment directly underneath my post, so grow up and apologise. Making comments "without declaring support or oppose" is part of the process - in this case a wider crop might have been available, so I should not oppose right away. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...well, yes, newer comments are typically posted at the bottom. That's how Wikipedia discussion threads have always worked. Be assured that if I wanted to reply to you I would have placed an indented comment below yours. I never criticized you or anyone else. Time to take a break perhaps? – Juliancolton | Talk 18:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good when viewed at half size. I would support if downsized to 50%. Bammesk (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charlesjsharp, in reading your comment above, FP criteria doesn't say "Images should not be downsampled", it just says 1500px minimum and larger sizes are preferred. I am generally against downsampling, but this being a retired ship (in some ways a historic photo), I would be Ok with it, just my opinion of course. Bammesk (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't on Wikipedia's FP Criteria page, you are right, my quote was from Commons. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 04:53:42 (UTC)
Original – After successfully hunting a bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus), a polar bear (Ursus maritimus) starts feeding on his North of Svalbard, Norway.
Reason
High quality image, very useful for both the species article and the act of predation
Comment Very valuable shot, but unfortunate that the head is not in focus. Despite the small size, it did get through Commons FP with good support. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - plenty sharp enough for practical purposes IMO. I'd love more resolution but I understand that the conditions likely required significant cropping even with a 600mm lens. At this distance, I think it's amazing the photo is as sharp as it is, actually. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing? A 600mm lens on a tripod + EOS5D body is more than capable of delivering sharp images. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is - I've taken a photo or two myself, believe it or not. :) It just requires special skill on the photographer's part and relatively cooperative conditions. That's a lot of atmosphere to be shooting through, even in cold and clear environments. And for what it's worth, the lens used was apparently the Tamron 150-600, which, while an excellent lens, conventional wisdom would suggest is not quite as sharp at the long end as would be a 600mm prime. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Difficult shot, perhaps from a ship, and there doesn't seem to be any mention of using a tripod. Could be sharper, but a rare moment with this kind of detail. In my opinion... --Godot13 (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 08:42:02 (UTC)
Original – HiRISE image of exposed water ice layers in Olympia Rupes.
Reason
High-resolution image of water ice layers in Planum Boreum's Olympia Rupes, a subject of scientific interest in the understanding of the past climate of Mars.
Comment – Leaning to support. In reading the file description I think the depicted width is 1832 meters, is that correct? I think adding the width to article captions is a good idea. A TIFF file is available from the source, converting it to JPG gives a larger, less lossy, file size. Bammesk (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a larger file and added the width to file description and article captions. Support. Bammesk (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - bases on the very poor framing (person cut off on the left), and questionable EV. Mattximus (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a time and place where it would be possible to pose. Obviously time is very restricted in such a place, and people are moving, so I don't understand your objection. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I do understand the nominator's sentiments but unfortunately I'm forced to agree with the "marginal EV" crowd. There's nothing about this image that provides any special insight into the disaster. The masks and suits look scary, but ultimately about on par with what you'd expect the workers there to be wearing. In fact, the orderly and calm poses actually convey a sense of complacency, as if the conditions are nothing to be alarmed about. Sorry, – Juliancolton | Talk 21:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Juliancolton: This comment makes me wonder if you understand what you are talking about? I expect these people to be trained professionals, not clowns running mad around. So being calm and attentive is certainly what is expected from them... Yann (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per other – Jobas (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Why not do this as a set? We've got numerous templates for displaying multiple images as a composite. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do we? I've not seen them. The idea of this was to illustrate a 'generic' article hummingbird. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bammesk, Jobas: I corrected the perspective. I hope that fixed the issue. Thanks for your reviews. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, I removed my vote but I think it is still technically underwhelming. The horizon is curved, there is no natural feature to justify the curvature, so I think it is the lens distortion again (similar to barrel distortion). The overall lighting is a bit flat, increasing the brightness and contrast can help. Bammesk (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the hell of it. I've put oreo's up for FPC consideration, I can back an abandon town. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
work for hire by Peacemaker Photography, uploaded by Amandadoyle543
Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Highlights look a bit blown, and rather pink. Distracting background. Image added to article only today. Sca (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAre we happy about previous copyright concerns on this image?Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I rather like this photograph, actually. I'm just concerned that the focus is just a little off. I'm thinking the camera focused on her nose rather than her eyes or face, and so her eyes and face are slightly OOF. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice find, but wouldn't mind slight reduction of highlights. Brandmeistertalk 22:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
High quality and resolution images of a famous early modernist building. I think the choice of lens and composition highlights the lines and architectural idea behind the building.
Support – Jobas (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose From looking at the other images in the Wikipedia article, this image (taken too close to the building) distorts the architectural design. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – too saturated and sugary. Bammesk (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC) . . Support – but as a picture. Bammesk (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – This image (or versions of it) has been in the infobox at Oreo for years. How does it now "add significant encyclopedic value" to the article? Underwhelming. Sca (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand the first argument. What does an image being nominated following years of stable usage (which surely indicates EV) have to do against it being FP-worthy? --Paul_012 (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed no reason for an oppose, and indeed stability (especially for an easily photographs subject such as this) is actually a sign that an image is recognized as having good EV. Sca has, for almost three years now, applied his own criteria to judging images, and become confrontational when asked to stick to the criteria. I can't see him changing any time soon. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tell that to The Times and The Washington Post. Or, even better, use your time to read, take to heart, and learn to apply the FP criteria rather than waste time debating grammar when your behavior is questioned. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I concede that some sources identify anytime as an Americanism (dating from the 1920s), and as such it's apparently eschewed in Britain/UK, etc. However, I would point out that any time can convey the negative, as in "he didn't have any time to waste," whereas, per Webster, anytime soon means in the near future, as you intended – or as a certain U.S. politician intended Friday in commenting on the failed health-care bill. Sca (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Different photographer, different approach. Evan Amos has never used a shadow in the years that I've been enjoying his photography. I prefer to have at least some shadow in my own photographs (though I'm out of practice; I haven't done product photography since my son was born). Others, like Colin, may use a "floating" approach, or may have a reflection of the item (see Clothes iron) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points, but to me floating Oreos still somehow feel stranger than floating video game consoles. Not sure why. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Kaldari (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Would need a lot of restoration before I could support. --Janke | Talk 10:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Janke and Adam Cuerden: In cases like this where we have an article about the photograph itself (rather than the subject of the photograph), is it appropriate to do restoration? Kaldari (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did some very light restoration on the image. Kaldari (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the answer is yes, unless the article was about a particular copy (a specific print). I would support if obvious artifacts are cleaned up, for example the four corners, the vertical ink mark in the text area, several obvious spots on frames 1 and 2, and similar obvious spots elsewhere. By the way, I think adjusting the levels of frame 8 as was done here is a bad idea (the print is an integrated piece, not a collection). Bammesk (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC) . . sidenote: based on what I have seen here at FPC, restoration of historic works should 1-retain artifacts that are an integral part of the original work, 2-retain any purposeful-and-material additions made such as signatures, stamps, or such, 3-retain the historic technical integrity of the image, such as color, texture, etc.[reply]
Comment - this is a photograph of a print, and not one in good condition; I strongly suspect that a cleaner version of the print may exist somewhere, which would mean a much better version of this would be possible. I initially thought this image, while much lower-resolution, showed one; however, while they are similar, they aren't identical, and I am curious to know which is the earlier. (The smaller image actually looks more like photographs - this one looks like it has been traced. This matches with the smaller image having 'The negatives ... are absolutely "untouched"' in its footer, which is missing from this version.) TSP (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TSP: My understanding is that this is the original version of the photo set (i.e. the first version that was published). The negatives were "touched up" to make them work better as illustrations, but when Muybridge showed them to the press, they complained about the fact that they were touched up. He then went back and published the original versions from the negatives (thus the weird 'The negatives ... are absolutely "untouched"' disclaimer on the other image). A later similar photoset (of a different horse) was published much more widely in 1887. As to whether a better print exists of this original version, I have no idea. This is definitely the best copy available on the internet. Kaldari (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense - nevertheless images like this one, while much lower-resolution, seem to offer tantalising hints that cleaner prints are out there which could be photographed. TSP (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated image comes from the Library of Congress, one of the most reliable sources for this kind of print. A cleaner print from a lesser source isn't necessarily a better starting point, unless its details match up exactly with the LOC copy, and that would be unlikely to come by. Bammesk (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
_immature_male.jpg)
,_Gembira_Loka_Zoo,_Yogyakarta,_2015-03-15_03.jpg)
,_Gembira_Loka_Zoo,_Yogyakarta_2015-03-15_03.jpg)
.jpg)
.gif){kind=link}
_3.JPG)
_on_zebra.jpg)
_female_composite.jpg)
![[1]](/en/File:Tour_bus_at_Third_at_Market,_San_Francisco.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
_underway_at_sea,_circa_1988-1991_(NH_97206-KN).jpg)
_with_its_prey.jpg)
.jpg){kind=spacer}
.jpg)
_male.JPG)
