Comment - Isnt this picture too young to be a Featured Picture? GamerPro64 03:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has high circulation in the media, I see no way this will be replaced by another photo. Bammesk (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - IMO, it belongs in the "In the news" section on the main page, not as a featured picture. The diagonal cable totally destroys it as a FP for me, hence oppose. --Janke | Talk 08:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Jumbled composition reduces EV. It's not readily apparent that they're inside an airplane. As Janke notes, not bad as an ephemeral spot news pic, but not up to Criterion 3 for an FP. – Sca (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose topical but not an FP composition - i.e. the wire. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Have to oppose due to the sheet and wire ruining the composition. I wish the photographer had gotten a composition like this. -- Veggies (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems rather unreasonable to expect USAF aircrew to go on near-combat missions with cameras on sticks as must have been used to take that photo. This is a documentary image. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "expecting" them to do anything but their jobs. We're judging this picture's FP qualities, not USAF professionalism. It just doesn't have the composition that I would consider to be FP-quality. -- Veggies (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good photo with excellent EV. I really don't understand the comments regarding composition above: this photo depicts an absolutely packed military transport aircraft during an historic flight undertaken in emergency conditions, so the obstructions are to be expected. The sheeting was likely screening the toilet facilities, which are located in that part of C-17 aircraft, so it's odd to suggest that it shouldn't have been there. In short, the photo accurately depicts what this event looked like, and in a pretty striking way. Nick-D (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Janke & Charles. —kallerna 12:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Per Nick-D this is a live action, documentary photo. It shows the chaotic, unplanned, unusual circumstance well. The messiness of the composition complements the messiness of the whole operation. In this case EV takes priority over artistic value IMO (criterion 5). On a sidenote: it's already used in 7 articles. Bammesk (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 16:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Janke. MER-C 10:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - that's a historic photo, and even if the composition is not perfect, it's the case where subject is more important that quality. - Artem.G (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Tiouraren (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – but the top edge is messy, it can be cleaned up (it can be cropped out, or cloned). Also on the upper left edge there is a shiny, glass looking, object; I think it can be cloned out. It's a bit distracting. Bammesk (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cropped the top edge (The brown surface seemed to be a part of the slab so I didn't crop it out). I'm not sure if it is appropriate to apply spot healing (in PS) on a fossil image, maybe the object could be dimmed so that it won't be that obvious. Tiouraren (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not the brown surface, but what looks like the bottom of a drinking glass on the extreme left edge, 1/4 from the top... can be easily cloned out. I'd also crop away the "slit" at top right. --Janke | Talk 08:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 16:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article on the Mallard II and got it to GA, and this is its main illustration. I think it's a pretty good photo of a pretty unique subject (the oldest operating dredge in California).
Support as nominator – jp×g 02:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – It isn't sharp. Would be acceptable if it was a historic photo, one time event, etc. but not for a contemporary photo of a stationary subject. Bammesk (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Atmospheric heat distortion causes the unsharpness. Better result on a cooler day? --Janke | Talk 16:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting is washed out, and you can't really see what the boat is doing so EV isn't great. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not Promoted. Jeez Louise. I guess I'll have to take my camera with me the next time I'm in the neighborhood, huh? jp×g 10:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Gotta admit I like this one. Charming. (Could be cropped a bit tighter from left.) – Sca (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice, but I think the crop could be a little tighter to add value. Also could be a hint brighter. —kallerna 16:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the balance of the crop is perfect for me! Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMO fails criteria 5 with this crop, though I agree that it is aesthetically pleasing now. —kallerna 17:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. You can always watch it in full res. --Janke | Talk 19:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crops not suited to encyclopaedic use. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charlesjsharp. Crop wrecks the composition. Also, the top-down perspective is a bit disorienting. -- Veggies (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --Janke | Talk 14:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quality lead image. FP on Commoms. Composition includes Tarazona Cathedral (top left), Tarzona seminary (top right), bull fight arena (bottom right), sanctuary of the lady of river (bottom center).
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2021 at 15:58:21 (UTC)
Original – River discharge in the Yukon Delta, Alaska. The pale color demonstrates the large amounts of sediment released into the ocean via the rivers.
Reason
Was seen on Commons FPC a few months ago, where it was featured unanimously. Very high resolution.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2021 at 02:24:14 (UTC)
Original – 8 Canadian National Freights in Alberta
Reason
It's a beautiful image, with the train as a focus point, but then a truly astounding background. This comes from one of the most famous train photographers (Roger Puta), and wikipedia as a whole would be better if exposed to his remarkable work.
comment This image has a misleading title. It is a Canadian National freight train hauled by two SD40-2 locomotives at a passing loop. The location is not given, Alberta is a very large area. There are not eight freight trains in this photograph. --Whiteguru (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just copied and pasted the original photograph titles. I could edit it to change the title. I was not the original uploader for this photograph, so I don't know the specific location. Lectrician2 (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The low quality issue is allowed, under a exemption for uniqueness and historical significance. Because of tree growth and more, this shot would be almost impossible to get nowadays. Hence this could be considered "unique". Lectrician2 (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It may have been good in its day. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But historical photographs are allowed to be submitted for featured article status. Shouldn't you consider this photograph in the time period of when it was taken? Plus the uniqueness of the photograph that would be very hard to recreate. Lectrician2 (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Also doesn't meet the 1500px requirement of FP criterion 2. Bammesk (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a exception for historical photos. I think that given the idea of this being a older photograph, and it being filmed on kodachrome 2, you could create a exemption. I find that this is a rather unique image that would be hard to replicate, hence being allowed a exception. Lectrician2 (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't used in any articles. It should be in an article (FP criterion 5). If it enhances the text of an article sufficiently enough, then it may convince the voters (reviewers) to make an exception and it may have a chance, but that's a hard task, given a somewhat similar image can possibly be shot (albeit painfully). The composition is great. It should be in This article perhaps. I wonder if the original film could be scanned at a higher resolution. Bammesk (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of the article criteria, so thanks for notifying me! I really would also like to see it in high resolution. Anyway's, i'l get right onto adding it! Lectrician2 (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient encyclopedic value given overly generic location. No need for a historic image (and the corresponding exception)--I'm sure someone could take a scenic photo of a train somewhere in Alberta these days that would work equally well. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low-quality and not historic enough for an exemption; I'm sure the exact same photo can be taken today with higher quality. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately doesn't add "significant encyclopedic value to an article". Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw we dont have one single painting (icon) of Theotokos (Mother of God) as FP. This one is perfect to improve that, and to dismis your statement talk, so i add her icon to Theoktos too. --Petar Milošević (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you add it now, wait for a month. And why is it special or representative? --Andrei (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per Charlesjsharp, Oppose. It could work in Serbian Iconography School or something more specific. --Andrei (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andrei i am not so sure it is Serbian Iconography School, i think it is Greek Kretan school, i see Latin lines here. --Petar Milošević (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, you see, this is the main problem. We know nothing about it. If it's available on the museum website with a description (or maybe you took a photo of the description in the museum), at least we could add something to the file description. Otherwise, it is a good photo and it is featured on Commons (where things are valued only from a technical/artistic point of view). --Andrei (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do add those description i see, just they dont add much or they cant add since not much is known. --Petar Milošević (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most iconic photographs of the industrial era, this work by Robert Howlett depicts the great engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel standing before the chains of the SS Great Eastern, the largest ship constructed to that date, which took months to launch after she was built. It represents an example of environmental photography in an era where it was technically difficult. According to the article, it "has been included in many published collections of photographs" and deemed "one of the most famous photographs of the nineteenth century, and, possibly, of all time." I'm not particularly into photography and even I know that this is one of those "iconic photos" alongside Into the Jaws of Death and Raising the flag on Iwo Jima (if not nearly as serious in subject matter). I was surprised this wasn't already an FP, so if it is do let me know; likewise if there is a better-quality version available on the wiki. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This might add EV to a rock arch article, but is not specially encyclopaedic for the Oak Park. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, it's not a park that shows throught the arch, but a community called Oak Park. A bit more EV in that way... :-) But unfortunately, the community is a bit overexposed. Back to RAW for a "locality edit"? --Janke | Talk 09:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Composition seems rather gimmicky to me. – Sca (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charlesjsharp. No need for rock arch border of photo of town. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good quality (official source, so no better is available). EV is represented by the number of articles where it appears. The photo is, basically, the main subject of the article. It happened a year ago, so no hype.
Oppose – Sign out of focus (DOF). EV minimal. – Sca (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Beautiful picture with significant historic value. --Gnosis (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It says a lot about the utter incompetence of this incident that the photographer messed up the exposure and/or DOF on what was obviously a pre-planned photo op. Technically this isn't great, but as noted in the nomination statement the EV is very strong. If this passes it shouldn't go on the front page, for fairly obvious reasons. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, no main page --Andrei (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On further consideration, I'm moving to full support on the grounds of a) EV being strong (as noted in the nomination statement, this incident which was a significant element of Trump's presidency was undertaken to obtain this photo) and b) the technical problems with the photo telling an interesting story in their own right - it seems that the photographer emphasised Trump at the expense of everything else in the frame, and the article on her notes that this was in line with the instructions Trump provided her with for her work. In short, it's a historically significant photo that forms a good illustration of how Trump wanted to be presented, even when it was obviously not a good idea. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to do much research here, but there are numerous articles online that highlight how and why, after remarkable work done by Pete Souza, Trump's administration was making characteristically bad photos. Almost all of them are low quality, badly composed, not personal, taken from a distance, they also often used mobile phones to document even the most significant events. --Andrei (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The image has EV for this one time event, but we feature one or two photos of any given person and this photo doesn't rise to the top IMO. Also his legacy is very much in flux (unsettled), he might become president again, I think it's too soon to have a FP of him. Bammesk (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Gnosis (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I struck this vote because it was cast after the voting period expired and it's also a duplicate (see above). ArmbrustTheHomunculus 22:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - unremarkable image which does not add any significant encyclopedic value to the article it is used in -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted, unsharp phone-camera snapshot, no EV. --Janke | Talk 18:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hi. I see you are new to Wikipedia. Do please study the FP guidelines and take a look at images that have been promoted. I suggest you start at Quality Images on Commons - where this image would struggle. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – MER-C 18:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – background is noisy, but underwater photos aren't easy. (struck per Poco2 below) Bammesk (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes and I have no frame of reference for the quality of underwater shots. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommentBammesk, Charlesjsharp, I've denoised the background a bit and removed some spots. For what I can judge this image is pretty sharp and this species is quite shy and quick, so I do believe that this is an extraordinary shot with high encyclopedic value --Poco2 14:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Benefit of the doubt! Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better now. --Janke | Talk 15:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Sepia común (Sepia officinalis), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-21, DD 62.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 22:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2021 at 08:35:04 (UTC)
Original – Painting by Francisco Goya depicting an auto de fé, an act of public penance carried out between the 15th and 19th centuries of condemned heretics and apostates imposed by the Inquisition, based on 1800-1810 first-hand accounts.
Reason
FP on Commons. I think that the particular historic value of this piece is due in large part to the late date in which it was produced. I think when most people think of the Inquisition they think of it in terms of the late medieval period, with the name of 15th century Grand Inquisitor Tomás de Torquemada becoming almost synonymous with the Spanish one (and little mention is made in popular culture of the Mexican or Portuguese ones). An artwork depicting contemporary trials in the 19th century, barely a few decades before Spain entered the industrial age, is in my opinion of high value as it dispels this distorted notion of the institution.
Support – A high quality image of great historic value. Two American presidents "peacefully discussing". (This image is on my talk pagesince a month) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Historical interest, but the composition is not to my taste. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Gimmicky composition, dominated by back of chair. – Sca (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I actually believe the back of the chair adds to the composition. Not only does the top create a sort of straight line-of-sight between the two, but the darkness of the chair creates a separation which illustrates both the divide between the two politicians and the tenseness of the situation. The divide reminds me of Vier Apostel (see below) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 21:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sca above. --Janke | Talk 20:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator, feel free to suggest any possible crop – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Obviously this photo has been extant for over half a century. New EV not apparent. – Sca (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca – The encyclopedic value of the image can be justified as it strongly contributed to the article "Assassination of John F. Kennedy", and is used in various other articles. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hugely historical, but otherwise not FP. There are better restored versions online. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, what other better restored versions? Do you have links? Bammesk (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I Googled and found it on a fine art site. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, I googled it too but didn't find anything better. Can you give us a url link to what you found? Bammesk (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a better version. It's contrasty and oversaturated. Bammesk (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Technically subpar even for the period: jumbled spot news pic that fails to focus on the star of the parade. – Sca (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historic. At that kind you dont crop. --Petar Milošević (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per Petar. Bammesk (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 10:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 11:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is the close as you can get to the temple. As you can't take your camera on the premises of the temple. Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 11:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Alas, jumbled composition doesn't really illustrate the subject. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not FP-worthy, fails criteria 3 & 5. --Janke | Talk 13:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Janke and Sca: This is the main temple in Pashupati. There are 492 temples surrounding the Pashupatinath Temple. Also, you can't take pictures on the temple's premises. This photo was taken from Pashupati Aryaghat, where you can use your camera. After overcoming these problems, this is one of the finest pictures of the temple. Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 13:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I agree the composition is muddled. This wide-angle photo: [2] shows more of the temple and has a more interesting composition (it's technical quality is lacking though). Bammesk (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator—kallerna 17:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – the file description can be better (FP criterion 7), things like country, air show or air team if any, airplane type if known. It can also say: a counterclockwise roll followed by a clockwise roll. Bammesk (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added a better description, thanks. —kallerna 04:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not best illustrated from the aircraft itself. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The video does not convey a clear message. Taken from another aircraft or a fixed point would be better, IMO. --Tagooty (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no reason why a third-person view is necessarily preferable to a first-person view here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Estrella roja del Mediterráneo (Echinaster sepositus), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-31, DD 79.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 14:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as is. We have a FP of this painting Here. The nom version has higher resolution, so a delist and replace nom might succeed. Also the left edge needs to be cropped out. Bammesk (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]