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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2017 at 13:46:13 (UTC)

Reason

Illudtartes article very well. FP on Commons

Articles in which this image appears

Balkan fritillary

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Undoubtedly a great one! Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Wings are very nicely focused, but the head and, most-importantly, the eyes are not. Insects really are incredibly difficult to do perfectly. -- Veggies (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose – nice composition but the head is partly out of focus. Bammesk (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2017 at 13:13:49 (UTC)

Reason

Quality image, illustrates article well. FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Cuban green woodpecker Woodpecker

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – it's sharp, Charles! Very attractive colorful photo. --Janke | Talk 13:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sharp picture, good colors, appropriate contrast...even the bird itself is in a dynamic pose. Very good. -- Veggies (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Colorful for sure, but the up-angle and the relative thickness of the branch obscure some of the subject. Blurry background seems somewhat distracting. Sca (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find the blurry background attractive, since it duplicates the coloring of the bird. Doesn't lessen the EV, IMO. --Janke | Talk 15:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – the composition works for me, she blends in, obscured tail is unfortunate. Bammesk (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, nice choice, although indeed the obscured tail is unfortunate. Brandmeister^talk 19:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support – I'm coming round to the colorful aspects. But as usual I'd prefer a tighter crop, particularly from the bottom – to make the branch less obtrusive. (Just throwing that out as a possibility, though I don't expect much agreement.) Sca (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I think I have to leave the branch in to frame the hidden tail. Charlesjsharp (talk)

I experimented offline with a bottom crop around the fork in the branches (also a bit of a trim on the left and just a shave on the right), and thought it looked good. – A suggestion for zooming in a little. Sca (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sca, but I still support. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion has merit, but then the bird's eye isn't in the centre, and you lose some nice blue sky on the left, so it's a trade off... – Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cuban green woodpecker (Xiphidiopicus percussus percussus) female.JPG --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ceiling of the Room of the giants in Palazzo Te, Mantua.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2017 at 01:45:30 (UTC)

Reason

Stunning shot of the recent solar eclipse in the US.

Articles in which this image appears

Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

NASA/Aubrey Gemignani

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – there is a round halo/shadow around the upper-left and lower-right of moon (visible at full size). Bammesk (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC) . . Sidenotes: given this FP [2] of an older eclipse, I am hoping there is a better image out there. This gif is interesting: [3], added it to the article.[reply]
  • I don't think that's from the camera/photographer. Anyone got an explanation?  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – not perfect but the EV makes up for it. Bammesk (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Chris, I don't think the extra halo/shadow is real. Other images don't have it [4], [5], [6] (the last two were uploaded today). Also, in the nominated image the moon is compressed vertically, it is perfectly round in other images. I struck my vote for now, would support a better image. Bammesk (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion -- One might consider substituting the original with [7] in the above post (slightly cropped and/or rotated) - no halo, otherwise almost the same... --Janke | Talk 13:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2017 at 14:50:43 (UTC)

Reason

An excellent supporting image for the section 'Relationship With Humans' for the article 'Sparrow'.

Articles in which this image appears

Sparrow

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Midhun Subhash

• Support as nominator – Midhun Subhash (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Even at full res. the subject – and the 'action,' if you will – are hard to make out. Sca (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not FP quality, just added to article. Midhun Subhash, you might want to take a look at some past FPC discussions to get a better idea of what is expected of FPs in general. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW close – Wait until April 1 to nominate the jokes. -- Veggies (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is a new editor. Doesn't know our FP rules. --Marvellous Spider-Man 16:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2017 at 16:43:06 (UTC)

Reason

detailed image illustrates article well. FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Black-headed lapwing

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - Wow, amazing! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Another excellent image. Mattximus (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Human beings destroy forests. After few hundred years so many species will be lost. --Marvellous Spider-Man 14:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Yann (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Nice one. DreamSparrow ^Chat 06:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Black-headed lapwing (Vanellus tectus tectus).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2017 at 17:06:47 (UTC)

Reason

detailed image illustrates article well. FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Yellow-billed shrike

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - Do you even put up any image that would not become an FP? :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• about 1 in 3 is rejected! Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - looks good to me. Nice pic! Mattximus (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Marvellous Spider-Man 14:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Yann (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 06:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Yellow-billed shrike (Corvinella corvina corvina).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2017 at 20:12:06 (UTC)

Reason

Photo illustrates Internment of Japanese Americans in 1942, by documentary photographer Dorothea Lange known for her work in this subject, restored.

Articles in which this image appears

Internment of Japanese Americans, American Civil Liberties Union

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

Dorothea Lange, restored by Bammesk

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Which Eden? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eden_Township --Janke | Talk 10:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The original source identifies this as being taken in Hayward, California, so presumably in the former Eden Township in Almeda County, parts of which were later incorporated into Hayward. (Not sure why the location has been left out of the caption here.) TSP (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, I added the photo's location to the caption. At one time Eden Township referred to the greater Hayward area [8]. The area has a Japanese-American community [9], [10]. Bammesk (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support now, with location identified. --Janke | Talk 06:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very good. --Yann (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• comment The problem here is that the image is not particularly prominant in either article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It is as prominent as any infobox image. It has been stable for 9 years [11] shows the entire family, luggage, tags, used by reliable sources including Encyclopedia Britannica to illustrate what happened, [12], [13], [14]. Besides, prominence isn't a criteria, EV is. It has as much EV as our other FPs: [15], [16], [17]. Bammesk (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Good restoration. As Bamm says, infobox images are not the only images we promote; EV is what we look at, and this image has plenty of it (as evident from its stability here and widespread use on other websites). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thanks for the details. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Historical. But wait, werent they deported and not evacuated...? --PetarM (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I dont see any difference betwen Ošvejcin, Jasenovac and this. Evacuated ?! They didnt went to picnic maybe ? What kind of Evacuation was this ? --PetarM (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a distinction can be drawn - hundreds of thousands were killed at Jasenovac, I don't think anyone is saying they were at the American camps. But, yes, the caption is distinctly whitewashy - "evacuees", "housed" - in our article we use terms like "internment", "forced relocation", "incarceration", it would probably be better for the caption to more closely follow the article in this rather than use the National Archives caption unaltered; unless we specifically mark the caption itself as a historic artefact. (But that doesn't alter the merits of the photograph.) TSP (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the last sentence from the nom's caption (that sentence was never in article's caption). The word "evacuation" is used in many sources, it refers to one phase of what happened, so I left it be, for instance [18], [19] (title), [20] (table of content). Obviously all sources describe what happened as the incarceration that it was. Bammesk (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think the caption actually is by the US National Archives - it's marked "original caption" on the archives pages so I believe is the original caption from 1942. "Evacuation" is used in some modern sources, but few of them use it exclusively - it seems to appears mostly in constructions like "evacuation and internment"; whereas this caption exclusively uses these terms. I'd suggest we either keep the whole caption intact and put it in quotes, marked as "original caption", as an explicit part of the history alongside the photo (ideally with some commentary on how those events are now viewed, but space may not allow that); or rewrite completely into terms more similar to our article text. A compromise seems in danger of putting outdated views into the voice of Wikipedia. TSP (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The caption should be rewritten and this 2006 article (I know it's an excerpt, but we're not trying to cite it here.) on the family may help.--Carwil (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, pending rewrite --Carwil (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Photograph of Members of the Mochida Family Awaiting Evacuation - NARA - 537505 - Restoration.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2017 at 15:36:14 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image

Articles in which this image appears

Waiting for Godot

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Fernand Michaud

• Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• comment It is a high quality image, but it doesn't add significantly to the article as it is not a notable performance. Many of the other images could illustrate the article equally well. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs some touching up. I see dust and a peeling corner.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image is not visible now. Marvellous Spider-Man 04:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - it's a well-taken artistic shot, but I don't really see the EV (see WP:FP?). This production isn't mentioned in the article, and the photograph doesn't really tell us anything about the production or the play - this could be two actors in almost any play. I actually prefer the other shot from the same production, which at least shows something of the staging and more of the characters. TSP (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2017 at 04:27:44 (UTC)

Alternate – CSS image crop

Reason

This image meets all of the featured picture criteria. It is dynamic, colorful, and replete with information about the Inner Harbor in Baltimore.

Articles in which this image appears

Inner Harbor

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Veggies

• Support as nominator – Veggies (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support - please re-nominate when it has been in the article for at least 7 days, per WP:FP?. --Janke | Talk 07:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ??? - The image has been up for a month ([21]). - Veggies (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, my bad, I misread the date - it was the next-to-last update, that's what tripped me up... --Janke | Talk 11:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I know it's a sunset picture, but EV might be better if it was lightened? Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taken in the daytime or given a longer exposure? -- Veggies (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • My first thought was that it could be lightened up a bit (Photoshop et al.) on the right side, to give it a better balance, but when you look at it in full size, it doesn't feel so necessary. I wouldn't oppose a careful lightening/gamma correction on the right half, though. --Janke | Talk 07:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I always think EV better in a daytime image, but otherwise you could do some lightening on the right I suppose. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about cropping out the right side, and to balance it, cropping out a bit of the left side? I added a CSS image crop. The harbor is almost entirely on the left side. The right side is dark and the buildings are cut off in the foreground. Bammesk (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looks good to me, thanks. Whatever people like best. I really try to avoid artificial colorizing or brightening/darkening as much as possible for WP images. I haven't had the chance to head out to Baltimore to do another pano in the daytime, yet. -- Veggies (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternate – Bammesk (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2017 at 06:56:06 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Taj Mahal

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Asit Jain on Commons

• Support as nominator – Nikhil B (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Cropped way too tight, makes for "uncomfortable viewing"... --Janke | Talk 07:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I like the sharpness and the lighting, but I agree the crop is too tight, no foreground, I would support if it wasn't so. Sidenote: we have 2 other FPs of this [22], [23]. Weak oppose (regretfully). Bammesk (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is not the iconic view of the Taj Mahal and I can't see why we would promote this. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Per Janke. (Also, a structure that's been photographed so many times that it's a visual bromide.) – Sca (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Existing FPs are more than sufficient.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I replaced the lead image with the previously featured image (it is much better). Mattximus (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2017 at 22:39:59 (UTC)

Reason

There appears to be a high technical standard, high resolution, has good lighting, is under a free license, and it is used in quite a few articles. Should I write more? This is my first FP nomination. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 22:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in which this image appears

Stephen Colbert, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, List of programs broadcast by CBS, List of people from Charleston, South Carolina, List of people from Chicago, Grammy Award for Best Comedy Album, United States presidential election, 2020, 1964, and others

FP category for this image

Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Neil Grabowsky

• Support as nominator – Hameltion (talk, contribs) 22:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Overly compressed (6.4 megapixels at 683 KB?), cropped too tightly.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The crop is a Wikipedia creation - original here - so might be worth someone recropping; but the original is 36 megapixels at 2.9mb, which by my maths is even more compressed... though I have to admit that it *looks* OK to me. (On the uncropped photo a larger proportion is the uniform dark grey background.) TSP (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I just don't see the point, in terms of either reader interest or EV, in featuring portraits of widely known current entertainment personalities (or politicians, or sports stars) on the Main Page. Sca (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  We vote based on EV. And someone's face does provide the best EV for an article on a person, unless the person is known for doing something specific (like play tennis). Popularity is not to be considered when voting. Encyclopedias don't just use pictures of obscure people... Mattximus (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  As Matt said. Also, we're fortunate that some people donate/make available images like this, and that one or two editors are regularly in positions to take pictures themselves. Highlighting some of these images (that meet our standards, obviously) offers an incentive for further donations. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Celebs get more than enough PR on their own. Sca (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See, that's the thing. You just think of FP as a PR machine, rather than a means of promoting growth on Wikipedia. Frankly, it's better for us if we have recognized celebs like Weird Al Yankovic as FPs; it is more likely to draw other photographers' attention.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My loyalty is to our readers. Sca (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're saying our readers wouldn't want to see a great picture of Stephen Colbert? Rather untenable position, that. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IYO. They can see him all the time elsewhere. Sca (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So your loyalty is not to our readers wants, but the needs you perceive. Of course.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to quote something I saw in an old nomination (not sure if it's still the precedent):

I dislike the argument "it won't suit the main page"; FP is not POTD. thegreen J Are you green? 3 September 2007 5:27 PM

This image doesn't have to show up on the front page; I just think it should be recognized as pretty good. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 03:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 03:21:53 (UTC)

Reason

Well constructed, high resolution, clearly identifies the subject.

Articles in which this image appears

• Al Gore
• 103rd United States Congress
• Template:Al Gore series (what links here)
• many lists

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Executive Office of the President of the United States

• Support as nominator – Hameltion (talk, contribs) 03:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – A 23-year-old promotional shot of a political celebrity. Sca (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose – bland composition. Bammesk (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Overly grainy. I highly doubt a proper scan would have this much noise.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't see how one can say that any one particular promo shot can enhance an article on a politician. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Request withdrawn Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 04:10:05 (UTC)

Reason

It's been featured on Commons, and shows a class in Afghanistan, different from using indoor desks in other parts of the world.

Articles in which this image appears

• Education
• Literacy
• Pashtun culture
• Muslim world

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle (Better category?)

Creator

John Severns, U.S. Air Force

• Support as nominator – Hameltion (talk, contribs) 04:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Those unattentive boys in the background kinda spoils this snapshot. Not Wikipedias "best"... --Janke | Talk 13:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Very nice slice of life showing something besides violence. And boys will be boys the world over. Sca (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Composition is, as Janke implied, less than stellar, and the boys are quite distracting.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per composition issues, not the greatest... Mattximus (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Love the color. Image is also featured on four wikis and Commons. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Inaccurate title. And I really cannot see that this image has EV as it does not significantly improve any of the four articles and is not representative of education/literacy etc. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Oppose While this is a useful photo, it doesn't clearly show that these children are in an outdoor school - a composition showing their teacher as well would be much superior. Nick-D (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Criticism on the basis of composition is very well and good, but look at this image: it shows in brilliant, beautiful color and with bright upturned faces the experience of education in a third world country. No teacher is present, but his/ her presence is more than implied by the faces of these students. They are not staring up at the clouds! And the boys in the background are absolutely perfect: they suggest an almost universal (if stereotypical) truth about boys and the educational process (I think I see myself in the kid in the orange shirt in the front row here). This image meets all the technical requirements (yes?); the criticisms based on composition don't hold up against what I see as a dramatic, eye-capturing moment in the lives of a group of children. The evidence of being an FP on all the other Wikis is not accidental. This is a great shot. It just is. I hope we won't hesitate in recognizing this. ( Charles, Mattximus, Chris, Nick, Janke, I have never asked any of you to do this before: please consider taking a second, harder look at this one. Ok? Thank you!) KDS4444 ^(talk) 09:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 15:05:32 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image, shows effects from fire blight, well focused and cropped.

Articles in which this image appears

Fire blight, Australia–New Zealand relations

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others

Creator

Peggy Greb from Agricultural Research Service

• Support as nominator – Hameltion (talk, contribs) 15:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have remove this from the Australia–New Zealand relations article as the image appears to be taken in the USA, though no geolocation is given. PLease put it back if I am wrong. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unfortunately, only one apple and a small bit of branch is in focus. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 20:39:49 (UTC)

Reason

Featured on Commons. "Bluish haziness and noise in the background," as Daniel Case put it in the Commons nomination, "[while] normally a flaw actually makes the image stronger."

Articles in which this image appears

Pampas deer, Pampas

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Fernando da Rosa

• Support as nominator – Hameltion (talk, contribs) 20:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm surprised that it was made an FP, but it did pick up ~150 votes in POTY so I will not vote against it. Wiipedia article should be edited to show this as hard antlers and the main image as antlers in velvet. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I don't understand what change you're asking for. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Describe the antlers in both images. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I see. I don't know the names for the specific types of antlers, unfortunately. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Important details for FPs I think. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 21:38:44 (UTC)

Reason

Illustrates article well. Featured Picture on Wikimedia Commons

Articles in which this image appears

spotted fritillary

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great one, yet again! Adityavagarwal (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Saisumanth Javvaji (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Background could be better. --PetarM (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support anyway! KDS4444 ^(talk) 09:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Marvellous Spider-Man 18:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Spotted fritillary (Melitaea didyma) underside Macedonia.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 08:52:00 (UTC)

Reason

Natural color looks good.

Articles in which this image appears

Mars, Planet, Revelation 12 sign prophecy

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

ESA

• Support as nominator – JCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 08:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck !vote of block-evading user. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It looks very good and clearly enhances the article on Mars. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Looks good to me, it's odd there isn't a higher resolution of this image however... Mattximus (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Of course, top EV. --Janke | Talk 07:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 12:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:OSIRIS Mars true color.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 19:18:45 (UTC)

Reason

Illustrates article well. Featured Picture on Wikimedia Commons

Articles in which this image appears

Charaxes jasius

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --PetarM (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Marvellous Spider-Man 18:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2017 at 19:27:57 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image showing the head of this noisy bird. Illustrates article well. FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Chaco chachalaca

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Main object is in the middle, compo isnt good. --PetarM (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — Agree, this is a bit "uneasy" to look at. The dirty beak is also off-putting... --Janke | Talk 10:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally agree, nature should bathe first, post second. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:5E (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Full body missing. --Marvellous Spider-Man 18:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]