Support as nominator –
Yann (
talk) 09:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Scanned from newspaper or other print source, coarse screen is visible. Original photo must exist somewhere... --
Janke |
Talk 10:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Janke: Yes, it is copied from a book, but it is, by far, the best available on the Internet. I don't have the money to buy the original. Regards,
Yann (
talk) 17:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Per
Janke. Plus jumbled composition.
Sca (
talk) 15:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Sca: Why do you mean by "jumbled"? It is photojournalism, not a studio shot. Regards,
Yann (
talk) 17:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)reply
As a longtime journalist (now retired) who sometimes took and/or edited photos, I can assure you that framing one's composition is an important aspect of good photojournalism. In this shot, two or three people are cut off and the principal subjects are looking away from the camera. There is no central focus to the composition.
Sca (
talk) 22:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2018 at 17:19:24 (UTC)
Reason
high resolution historical image with complete restoration. The image has its own article, and it is mentioned in
List of iconic photographs. There was an earlier failed nomination with a smaller version of the picture.
ConditionalSupport, if the bright wedge along the upper left border is eliminated (cloned or cropped out).
Bammesk (
talk) 00:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2018 at 19:00:29 (UTC)
Reason
I originally pulled this out of latest files feed when it was uploaded back in June. Honestly, it was such high quality with such vivid colors that I was pretty sure it was going to end up being a copyright violation, but it ended up just being a really excellent image uploaded by Julius Dadalti (
this guy), and donated as part of
Wiki Love Earth 2018. Having looked through quite a few books and stories trying to polish up the article for this nomination, it puts a lot of the images used by the sources to shame. Also just for context, even though these almost look like puddles you can step across with your rain boots, they're actually pretty dang big (
goat for scale) and expansive enough that they're
visible from the International Space Station.
Comment if this is the best image we have of Ceres, why is it not in the infobox, but buried in the article?
Mattximus (
talk) 14:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment – detailed and has EV, but this being an "orthographic projection" (per file description), in other words a composite photo of a planet, it doesn't look natural enough. The inconsistent shadow directions bother me.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Too much flowery foreground, busy detail in background. Might be better taken from the other side.
Sca (
talk) 13:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Support - It's a park, so the flowers are OK, IMO. --
Janke |
Talk 10:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)reply
But the photo is intended as a view of the portal or gate, not of many small flowers in a park.
Sca (
talk) 15:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Moscow Gorky Park main portal 08-2016 img1.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 12:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2018 at 10:23:28 (UTC)
Reason
Good quality and high EV. This is the room where
David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, lived in its later years. In 1953 he quit the role of Prime Minister and moved to
Sde Boker in the
Negev, and encouraged the people of Israel to move and to settle the Negev and the periphery of the country in general. Before dying he asked that his house in Sde Boker will be reserved and serve as a museum,
Ben-Gurion's Hut. The museum, and this picture in particular, demonstrates the famous simpilicty in which Ben-Gurion lived, which is a complete contrary to the luxury life many of the Israeli policians have now.
Weak oppose – Unfortunate composition problem, a fin covers the other whale. --
Janke |
Talk 08:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Neutral, leaning weak oppose - The composition with the fin is unfortunate. The lighting is pretty dull. (Compare the lighting in
this FP that just reaches out and smacks you in the face.) It is likely among the best such images we have, given it's use in three related articles. But I'm not sure this image in particular isn't liable to be replaced in time with a better one, given how common images of the subject are.
GMGtalk 13:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2018 at 05:32:26 (UTC)
Reason
High quality image. It is the earliest and, according to specialists, most realistic painting of Van Gogh by one of his contemporaries, and reportedly his favourite.
Comment – Too many animals.
Sca (
talk) 01:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)reply
oppose I don't think 'too many animals' is a fair point. Too many leopards would be fair. This is not FP composition: no tail; and technical quality barely QI.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 07:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose but not because it is an animal (we need more animal photos) but because the framing is off (the tail is cut off).
Mattximus (
talk) 15:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Per
Mattximus. And although the hues may demonstrate camouflage/protective coloration, low contrast reduces visual accessibility.
Sca (
talk) 17:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2018 at 11:53:06 (UTC)
Reason
High quality encode of entire short film under a compatible license. I can think of no better way than to demonstrate the film than to actually show the entirety of it to the viewer.
Comment, and leaning towards oppose - This is already 12 years old, with very stiff (if not outright amateurish)
character animation. Is it really worthy of being featured? --
Janke |
Talk 12:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm wondering how it could possibly be made any better without making an entirely different film. Yes, it was made 12 years ago. Yes, the animation isn't good, but that's what the movie is. If we go this route I also don't think
Roundhay Garden Scene should ever be featured because it's basically crap in all regards. And nether should
The Mystery of the Leaping Fish and
Night of the Living Dead because the acting is stiff and the scripts dumb. Should we really judge movies on their content rather than their files' quality. To me, that's like saying
The Ugly Duchess is not feature worthy because of it's ugly motif, nor
Discovery of the Land because it's not realistic enough.
FakeShemp (
talk) 20:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Per
Janke. Technically not up to FP or Main Page standards. Scant EV.
Sca (
talk) 17:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)reply