Okay, so Dezoomify wasn't working with this website but I managed to rig up a workaround (basically, I used the same software I use when sewing together panoramas or scanning items larger than my scanner). I've added it as an ALT here. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt - Perfect. PS:Original is an FP in another wiki. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT as well. Original couldn't be overwritten due to being FP on the Persian Wikipedia, but the ALT is a more accurate digitization and should be on Commons. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both. Title of nomination. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What's up with the title? Howardcorn33 (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A little carol of the drum cuz, Christmas/Nativity. I haven't nominated one FPC in a while and back in 2015 when I was active, I used to put titles like this. There wasn't any guideline or rationale aganist this back then, and IMO, still haven't got any. So, why not?? :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. There is no firm standard for titles of candidacy pages, and they are entirely internal (the average reader will never come across one), and thus it used to be somewhat common to make references to the subject matter rather than use the name of the subject or the file name. It wasn't just Herald; I know I did, and I think at least one other person did as well. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Herald: Mind you, think we generally easter egged them - used sensible headers, but when you clicked through you saw the page name. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 02:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we did. Kinda like featured section on Signpost. Hopefully, this Christmas eve, we can have this one. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt. MER-C 10:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support for alternative -- Radomianin (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Adoration of the Shepherds, Murillo (Prado Museum).jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 16:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Crop is a bit too tight - notice how her hair continues past the edge of the image - and the highlights on her lapel are blown. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support restoration - Lapel is not blown - in the 215-240 region. The crop at the top doesn't bother me, but the background has a lot of scratches - needs some light restoration, and at the same time those few strands of hair crossing the image border could be cloned out; no big deal... --Janke | Talk 09:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do my best, which hasn't been... great of late. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 02:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support restoration – pending restoration. I am not bothered by the crop. Bammesk (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, there's a less-cropped version in the history. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 23:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, I support either way, a wider crop would be fine. I doubt the other participants would mind a wider crop either. Bammesk (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's about half-done. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 18:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support restoration. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support restoration. Also, @Vinícius94, Janke, Crisco 1492, Bammesk, and Radomianin: I did it. I did have to revert the original image to the, well, original image as part of it, though, as it's the only way to keep the documentation. Not 100% happy with that, but not sure what to do. Might crop or edit the right edge, if desired, let me know preference between editing or cropping. I cropped for now. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 07:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, the "Mayer" in "Metro Goldwyn Mayer" is there. It's almost invisible, but may be worth taking a look. Bammesk (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did the trick where you make a layer with altered curves to emphasise the parts you want to fix, then edit the lower level (then check again). That probably got it. Couldn't see much more than a couple letters, but they're gone now. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 19:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your effort, Adam. I support the restored version, personally prefer it. Best, -- Radomianin (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support restoration only -Quite a bit better, and there appears to be more detail on her face — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support restoration. Aviafanboi 12:23, 02 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2023 at 03:03:27 (UTC)
Reason
Good depiction of a fish farm, it includes the service facility. The overhead power lines aren't ideal, but not unexpected given the proximity of the farm to land. FP on Commons.
Comment - Here we really have blown highlights... 255 all the way on the chorten (is that the name?) mid-left. --Janke | Talk 20:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tagooty: will be better able to address this, and fix it if it needs to be. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done@Janke: I have reworked from RAW to avoid blown highlights in the chorten. Please see the new version. --Tagooty (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination, @UnpetitproleX:. The image has good EV, showing the cave monastery on the cliff above the Tsarap river, the steep barren terrain, and the small village on the far bank. --Tagooty (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Tagooty, the previous version [1] was much sharper! Neutral on voting. I prefer the infobox image. Bammesk (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bammesk: Thanks for the observation. The Sony A7C must apply sharpening when it creates a JPG. I've now sharpened the RAW to be similar to the JPG. Between the two images ... let's hear other views. --Tagooty (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks. Bammesk (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bammesk: I don’t think the two images are comparable, they’re quite different. I plan on nominating the infobox image as well, to be featured in the architecture gallery since the focus is the monastery. Nominated this image precisely for the wider view of the valley where the monastery is only a small part of the image as a whole, and therefore in the landscapes gallery. UnpetitproleX (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is that the etymology of the monastery speaks to the mythical status of the cave in the cliff, which becomes apparent from the wider view. But as a representative image (i.e. for infobox) the close-up is better. UnpetitproleX (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I am not opposed to the nom image becoming FP. It meets all the requirements. I am just neutral. Bammesk (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've edited the nomination above to credit the creator of the image. The work nominated for FP here is not the anonymous marble bust of Marcus Aurelius, it's the photograph of that bust by Daniel Martin. The photo is a derivative work separate from the bust itself, with its own creator and its own CC license. Daniel Martin doesn't appear to have a personal Commons account, so we can't ping him to tell him about the nomination. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't be credited. (In fact, attribution is mandatory with a CC-4.0-BY-SA license.) Choliamb (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Choliamb, for your edit and your useful comment indeed. — Hamid Hassani (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2023 at 11:58:58 (UTC)
Reason
While a bit small, and while I did add a little extra blank space on the right because the original uses the paper it's printed on to centre the image, and we cannae do that in a crop, it's a good image of an otherwise unillustrated person. Overpainted salt paper print, which seems to have had a lot of enhancement done by the oriignal artist.
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 11:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Target article with 167 words is more or less a stub. Nominated pic. is absent from HMS Euryalus, although Tarleton is mentioned high in the 400-word text. – Sca (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's enough for a main page appearance. And it lacked an image before. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 23:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, enhancing the details and adding the big oval in. [2]Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 17:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I ask as overpainting doesn't mention anything done with photography, and the image here is certainly quite different than anything I've seen for a while. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - High technical quality, though I would feel better having documentation of the overpainting if it's available. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's all that's documented, I fear. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 19:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2023 at 09:03:12 (UTC)
Reason
First African-American to receive a PhD from an American University, and one of the first twenty Americans to receive a Physics PhD. One of those brilliant people who got stifled because of their race.
Yes mostly. The right-most pixels on the edge (mid to lower right edge) can be touched up. Not that it's significant, just that knowing you it's something you always touch up. Regardless, nice work as always. Bammesk (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SHOULD be fixed now Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 02:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great picture and person. HenryMP02 (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with current image description and article captions. It might seem obvious to some, but photorealistic renderings need to be properly described as such to avoid confusing or misleading readers. The original NASA caption begins with "An illustration of NASA’s Perseverance rover landing safely on Mars", but the uploader left out this crucial first paragraph, failing criterion 7. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Paul_012, agreed, good point. I had checked the source and knew it was an illustration, but I didn't check the Commons and en-Wiki descriptions. I updated the image description and captions. Bammesk (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for that! Artem.G (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've struck my oppose. Still undecided on the picture's merits per se, so please consider my position neutral. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Artem.G (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awkward composition, needs cropping of the upper portion, maybe also the stand at left... --Janke | Talk 12:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced of the EV. Surely there should be some decent quality NASA footage of astronauts eating on the ISS? MER-C 16:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2023 at 14:01:15 (UTC)
Reason
One of those people with a slightly weird face, but think it's well-photographed for the era, and it's a good photo of him. Not the worst cleanup to do.
Support – Weird face or not, it's a good photo for its age - some 30 years after photography was invented... --Janke | Talk 20:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The subject is hardly visible, mostly overshadowed by the surroundings. I doubt the EV too, since the lead image in the article is an ever better tighter crop, showing the engraving closer and better. A further tighter crop without loss of details, if present, can be a potential alt. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2023 at 18:16:46 (UTC)
Reason
Criteria 1 and 2 are trivial for this since it is digital. (Not 1500 pixels, but I think this can slide.) It is one of the most verifiable files on Commons (6), and it is of obvious value to anyone visiting the page on the Russian Invasion of Ukraine (5). It is under a free license (4). Criteria 7 is fulfilled, 8 appears irrelevant. As for Criteria 3, it is one of the greatest files on Wikimedia Commons. In thousands of years, when our descendants remark on the wonders of collaborative information, they will refer to this file. (It's an exaggeration, but you get my point.)
Articles in which this image appears
links to the article(s) that use this image, in order of where the image has highest encyclopedic value
Support as nominator – Bremps... 18:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as such. Too small to read most place names when clicked on. The SVG format is accessible only via the file page. The legend box lacks explanation of gray areas south of Zaporizhzhia - is that the flooded area? Would support a version more easily accessible and zoomable. It also needs to be updated continuously. Is there a viable solution to this? --Janke | Talk 12:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Janke. Even at full res this map is not helpful in illustrating or explaining the topic. – Sca (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per above. Also, stability of the image is debatable as it can be edited. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2023 at 02:02:36 (UTC)
Reason
I am nominating this image to call attention to the large archive of public-domain photographs by the underrated journalistic portraitist Bernard Gotfryd. Gotfryd donated his physical images to the Library of Congress and his copyrights to the public upon his death; the LOC has made 8,835 of them available online. He had an interesting life and an interesting style, often praised for his charismatic but unsentimental candor. I don't know that this one is the best one, but it's intriguing, I think the use of natural light works well and represents the kind of improvisation that makes Gotfryd special, and it captures a side of Jong's personality, quite early in her career, not represented in the other photos of her on Commons. I should note that the LOC's date of 1969 seems unlikely--she was unknown at that date (I'm sure the LOC's dates for these are based on Gotfryd's boxes as they received them, so they might well be dates from). Based on her hairstyle in other photographs of her, I suspect it's from 1973, the year Fear of Flying was published. I have cleaned up the most obvious dust (there was plenty) but I know you have high standards for such things here.
Support as nominator – blameless 02:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, we recently featured his Picture of Angela Davis. A dozen spots around the necklace, another dozen lower right. Also, a blue spot upper right, otherwise pretty darn good. Colours arguably faded, but very authentic for the era. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 02:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll try to work on those spots tomorrow. That's a great picture of Davis, but I'm not sure what's happening with the images in that article--it looks like Gotfryd's was removed but now the 2014 one is in it twice? Presumably it will stabilize, hopefully with Gotfryd's in it somewhere. blameless 02:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People can be stupid about things. Reverted a bad edit. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 16:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice portrait, even though quite grainy - also not too nice background. Note to restorer: there is a teensy bit more space on the left side in the LOC original file... --Janke | Talk 08:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Nice comp of an interesting subject, but quite indistinct at full res. – Sca (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all. I've attended to the spots Adam Cuerden mentioned. Janke, that cropped out bit on the left has some kind of gray fiber intruding into it--I think this must be a mounted slide, and the mount has started to degrade. There might be a few more pixels one could get and still have a clean edge--not sure. No problem withdrawing this if the quality isn't there. blameless 01:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support You get a certain amount of up and down in film quality over the decades, especially with new innovations like "shorter exposure" and "colour". This seems quite good for its era. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 05:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 18:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose great to have a decent picture of the subject, but frankly I don't see what makes it feature-worthy. The composition and hair obscuring the face limit its EV, IMO, and that's my primary concern here. (t · c) buidhe 05:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see being turned off by how heavily shadowed it is, but as far as the hair is concerned, if that's how she was representing herself publicly and professionally at this point in her career, then it seems like there's some value in that. She seemed to do it a lot; it's not incidental to this photograph. blameless 04:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – different than our typical portraits. It is not sharp, but good enough at 50% magnification at around 1600 x 2200 pixels. Bammesk (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Erica Jong by Bernard Gotfryd edit.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 12:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Caterpillars look a little blurry, but I think that's more to do with the refraction from the fine cocoon above them. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 05:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2023 at 17:57:37 (UTC)
Reason
Quality lead image of this fish. I just noticed this image was added to the article very recently, so your votes will be conditional on the image remaining stable for 7 to 10 days. Let me know if you think suspending this nom is a better idea. Also, we do have a low resolution FP of this fish [4], which I will nominate for delisting if this nom passes. This image is currently at Commons FPC.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2023 at 06:06:36 (UTC)
Reason
It's a great image. Now, in his main article, it's a little lower down, but that's because the current lead doesn't really fit anywhere else in the article, and I didn't want to just remove it. If we leave the lead as it is, then this one fits fairly nicely time-wise with Slaughterhouse-Five, and the current lead can stay in the article.
Oppose. It's an excellent photo, but in my opinion the EV is rather poor, since the distinctive orangey wash on the belly and vent, which is one of the most conspicuous features of this species when seen in the field, is mostly hidden in the shadows here. Compare, for example, File:Sayornis saya2.JPG (which is also in the article), or File:Say's Phoebe (24691191368).jpg. The previous lead image was also pretty muddy, and I think MER-C was right to replace it. But I don't think this one is the best choice either, at least for encyclopedic purposes. Choliamb (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great shot! -- Radomianin (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slightly grainy, but that'll be a necessary part of getting it to not have motion blur. I love it. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 05:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 10:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Stargazer and Pegasus F43 in flight over Atlantic (KSC-20161212-PH LAL01 0009).jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 15:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 13:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It's possible that cropping the empty space at the bottom a bit would be reasonable. Give thoughts. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 23:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Could also be rotated slightly CCW. --Janke | Talk 16:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those artworks where none of the lines are that square. Much more notable at thumbnail than it would be in normal uses of the time. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 05:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – either way, slight preference for the crop as is. Bammesk (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:John Everett Millais - "A Reverie" from The Window; or, The Song of the Wrens.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 14:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have to agree with Hamid here: You're usually great, and this is great even for you, and the added aesthetics of the interestingly odd subject add some extra wow factor (I mean, EV means the subject's prettiness shouldn't matter here, but it's worth mentioning when everything comes together at once). Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 08:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 10:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition. Like the way the colours come together. Good detail and high EV. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 08:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 10:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd like to see this on the front page at some point. "Horatio at the bridge" is one of those stories that every English schoolboy learned, back in the good old days when Latin was a mandatory part of the educational cursus. And this is one of the best of Goltzius's engravings of legendary Roman heroes. It's also an excellent choice for the Figura serpentinata article, although I don't think it adds much to Christian Rex van Minnen. – Choliamb (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am also grateful to this nomination for sending me to the 404 page for the Rijksmuseum, where I learned that the Dutch for "Oops" is "Oeps". – Choliamb (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my support for the original version to Support alt. Well done, Bammesk. Also agree with Chris that 24mpx is plenty in this case. – Choliamb (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I updated the file's source link. I think a higher resolution scan is available at the source link [5]. Bammesk (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Horatius Cocles De Romeinse helden (serietitel), RP-P-OB-10.336.jpg is 24Mpx, much better than the nominated version which is 6Mpx. Let's just swap the higher res in the articles and in the nomination, and ping the participants. The nom's closure can be postponed a bit if necessary. There are enough votes to pass. The stitching of an even higher res version can be done later as a 'delist and replace', I don't think it's necessary though. Support ALTthis version. Bammesk (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. For something that, in the original, is probably about book size the 24Mpx version has as much detail as one would realistically need. Support ALT — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt. MER-C 10:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT Thanks for pinging me, Bammesk. The research for a better quality version was worth it. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Horatius Cocles De Romeinse helden (serietitel), RP-P-OB-10.336.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 10:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The reflections (probably intentional) ruin EV. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a passive satellite relies on reflection, both radio waves and light... the only way for it to be detected. How else could you illustrate a silver sphere? --Janke | Talk 18:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Janke | Talk 08:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – good EV, nice and sharp for 1965. I am fine with the reflections, and per Janke. Bammesk (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: opposing because of its reflection is like opposing a mirror FPC because of reflection. Good quality. GeraldWL 07:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. High EV. Choliamb (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Charles. Confusing, jumbled comp. Not readily apparent what subject is. – Sca (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on irreplacability grounds. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.5% of all FPs. 17:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2023 at 21:54:14 (UTC)
Reason
Featured picture and quality and valued image on Commons, nice perspective captivating subject and shadow, respecting the rule of thirds. This image enriched the relative Wikipedia page.