Support --
Yann (
talk) 16:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose — I have to oppose featuring a photograph of a subject that is completely counter to how the subject perceives herselve. Especially since the availability of
File:Chelsea Manning on 18 May 2017.jpg which I support as an ALT. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 17:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose (both). In addition to the issue of disrespect, it's a rather bland posed photograph. No strong opinion on the alt right now, but as it's a completely different picture used in a different way, I think it should nominated separately.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 19:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Pardon me? Disrespect? Did I even refer to her as Bradley Manning?, In 2012 whether you like it or not she was still male. She no longer is now. Never meant disrespect. --
TheMistfan (
talk) 19:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
I didn't mean to accuse you of behaving disrespectfully; if that was suggested by what I wrote, then I should have been clearer.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 21:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose the original per Coffeeandcrumbs and per the point that, well, it's a rather bland posed photograph. The second is better — it's at least "author photo on book jacket" instead of "Department of Motor Vehicles", metaphorically speaking — but maybe it should be nominated separately.
XOR'easter (
talk) 13:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose - needs restoration. Defects on the senator's and his wife's faces are particularly bad and detract from the EV.
MER-C 14:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Agree - but those defects appear to be attempts of retouching the original negative. (That was often done, but this looks quite clumsy.) A restoration would be difficult, it's obvious the man has some kind of scar on his chin/neck. Restoring that to original appearance would be quite difficult... --
Janke |
Talk 20:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Support – The DOF is so good. @
JJ Harrison:, bravo! I can actually see droplets of dew on the bird's belly. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 02:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Support – I would have removed the spider web. It looks like damage and is not important to the subject but is distracting. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 05:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
Tomer T (
talk) 22:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose - messy composition.
MER-C 10:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)reply
I agree it is a messy composition, but it has wow factor and is an underwater shot. Here is
another composition, it shows the potential for better compositions. Support for the wow factor and EV. I think I like it too much not to support!
Bammesk (
talk) 13:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2019 at 19:30:29 (UTC)
Reason
Guion Bluford is the first African American to go to space. He went to space four times. This photograph was taken just a few months before his last trip in the
Space Shuttle program.
Support as nominator – ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 19:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Whatever he's looking at, it isn't the camera.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 17:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Charlesjsharp, I think he is looking at the camera. I think he has a slight
esotropia. (If you cover one eye at a time with your finger you will notice both eyes are separately looking at you but they point in slightly different directions.) His
other portrait is worse (where he is looking completely in a different direction) also shows that he has esotropia. Surprising for an astronaut! For en.wiki, this photo is the best option for the lead image. He is now 76 years old and this photo was taken when he was 50. I think this photo is the best representation we have of the subject. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 18:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)reply
As you say, surprising for an astronaut.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 18:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Over the past few hours, I have looked at dozens of photos of Bluford. Every one them shows similar characteristic in his eyes, very pronounced in some photos. However, I cannot locate RS to verify a diagnosis. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 22:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Support. The esotropia isn't flattering but if that's what he looks like it's what he looks like; it's not a flaw in the photo. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 07:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2019 at 19:05:06 (UTC)
Reason
I couldn't tell it from a hole in the ground. Nice detail, FP on Commons. (
There is a panorama of the mine, also a FP on Commons, but it is cut off on the left hand side. Please say if you want it considered.)
Support as nominator –
MER-C 19:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – Monochromatic tableau lacking a central focus. –
Sca (
talk) 21:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – I think the panorama is more encyclopedic.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Confusing perspective, especially when comparing to the panorama. As you said, you couldn't tell it from a hole in the ground. I'd say it looks rather dull.
Mikael Häggström (
talk) 13:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment. This could look good printed very large, in the vein of
Edward Burtynsky. That way you could see the vehicles more clearly and get a better sense of scale. But I think that cropping out all the context makes it less encyclopedic, and that it doesn't work as well at the small image sizes typical of an encyclopedia article. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 07:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2019 at 13:33:41 (UTC)
Reason
*The acquisition of an image like this depends on a series of unlikely events. First, the pregnancy was relatively late, making the baby's anatomy more clear. Second, the woman had to be in an accident serious enough to warrant a CT without radiation dose reduction (which would be of much lower quality, and in this case it was a high speed traffic accident). At the same time, the woman did not have any visible physical damage, thereby allowing for an image of normal anatomy (and getting her written consent for its online publication).
Several processing steps in order to make a rotating gif image from CT data. However, I do not know how to remove the "FLP" and cube at the bottom.
Support – though shouldn't we feature the
highest resolution version, with a note that the lower resolution version needs to be used for thumbnail use in articles for technical reasons? (But that seems a technical question, the content is the same.)
TSP (
talk) 12:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)reply
To me, it seems counter-intuitive for Wikipedia to feature a version that it cannot properly display.
Mikael Häggström (
talk) 12:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Imagine if we could support some modern video and animation formats. How cool would that be?
JJ Harrison (
talk) 06:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Volume rendered CT scan of a pregnancy of 37 weeks of gestational age (smaller).gif --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 13:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support, though if you can get a bit more DoF in front of the bird, I think it'll improve your compositions. The immediate foreground always looks a little odd in them. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.8% of all
FPs 10:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Do you mean to say that I lied down in wet sand for nothing?! =)
JJ Harrison (
talk) 03:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Haematopus unicolor - Point Chevalier.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 02:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Effect of the lens, not manual blurring. See
this. --
cart-Talk 10:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Sure, as I said, opposed on aethetic grounds.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 12:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)reply
That was said on my talk page on Commons, not here, so I'm glad you clarified your vote on this page too. Your very short reviews can sometimes be too short and hard to understand. --
cart-Talk 13:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose Contrast between grass and blurred parts just looks unnatural. --
A.Savin (
talk) 13:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose Not a good compo IMO. In some cases this special lens can make astonishing photos, but for this the bird gets sharp while the whole scene looks strange and unnatural. --
cart-Talk 14:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – I added a CSS image crop as a suggestion. The image has EV. Per
user:Cart I looked at the flickr examples
here. These two photographers
[1],
[2] list lens settings very similar to the nom image. The foreground bokeh's abrupt transition to the in-focus region is a common thing
[3],
[4],
[5],
[6]. These two photos
[7],
[8] are very interesting: same lens setting but dissimilar bokeh because of foreground distance or elevation. Here is the lens wide open:
[9].
Bammesk (
talk) 14:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Just as an addendum. There is a technique aspect to this - the photo is taken prone with the camera very close to the ground. This means that the background is relatively distant and hence out of focus.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 09:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Noted, it makes more sense now. The heavy blur of the foreground bokeh is distracting. Such blur is common in backgrounds (expected), but not usually seen in foregrounds. Also, the abrupt transition between it and the in-focus region amplifies the effect, as if the ground is elevated in the near field and obstructing the view, rather than flat. Weak support original, some cropping of the foreground would be an improvement IMO.
Bammesk (
talk) 16:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
MER-C 09:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support – but I prefer
this version, it looks sharp enough and is easier to look at (it has a softer background).
Bammesk (
talk) 12:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support Thank you for nominating my photo.--
Famberhorst (
talk) 05:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2019 at 06:21:40 (UTC)
Reason
I think this serves a purpose separate to the identification of the people in it (though the centremost one is
Sikhanyiso Dlamini): It does an excellent job at showing the garb and pomp of
Umhlanga
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.9% of all
FPs 06:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Has that 'snapshot' feel about it. The cut-off breast on the LHS isn't good.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 10:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Sorry Adam, but running a crowd pic without IDs serves little purpose in terms of EV. (An exception might be crowd pix illustrating major news events. But even the most widely known
photo from the 1970 Kent State shooting carried IDs.) –
Sca (
talk) 14:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Sca: That's hardly true. Festivals generally don't have everyone identified. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.9% of all
FPs 16:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Sorry to contradict again, but my professional experience is otherwise. If you really want to know I can tell you about a local illustrated magazine I once helped edit.
Sca (
talk) 20:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)reply
PS: As an ed. I'd be reluctant to run a photo whose point of focus seems to be the subject's exposed right breast. No prude here, but it seems inappropriate.
Sca (
talk) 20:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose – I am all for featuring au naturale but this is just not FP material. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 00:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support (but please crop that LHS nipple out per Charles). I'm going to go against the grain here - I think it has EV and we constantly fail to promote photojournalistic or documentary images of the human world.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 06:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2019 at 05:15:20 (UTC)
Reason
For the oddly least-well-known of the Figaro plays, there's still a lot to like. Bégéarss, an Irishman (I'm pretty sure his name is a terrible pun, think something like "Begorrah!"), is the character it, in a way, turns around, his schemes pushing everything forwards. It's a very good illustration. I've cropped it to centre the text. I could see cropping the note in the bottom right closer to, to centre the figure more. Crop is a compromise between image and text centering.
How about rotating it 90 degrees? It would be easier to look at.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I do rotate butterfly images, but this is a normal position for this species.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 10:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Furthermore, if rotated, the light would appear to come from below - which would look quite unnatural! Support --
Janke |
Talk 17:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Not if the image is rotated 90 degrees as suggested (clockwise). The light would be coming from right, slightly above horizon.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
But the feet would be all wrong - see the way it is gripping the twig.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 19:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Recently
featured in the Signpost and just passed FPC unanimously on Commons. These are truly outstanding maps, with a reproduction that is equally excellent. For context, see
[10].
Support as nominator –
MER-C 15:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – The scans look quite overexposed and oversaturated, outright gaudy. Can we find another reference? --
Janke |
Talk 17:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Heinrich Berann NPS Panorama of North Cascades without labels.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 07:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply Promoted File:Heinrich Berann NPS Panorama of Yosemite without labels.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 07:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply Promoted File:Heinrich Berann NPS Panorama of Yellowstone without labels.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 07:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply Promoted File:Heinrich Berann NPS Panorama of Denali without labels.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 07:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2019 at 01:44:26 (UTC)
Reason
A fine image of an electric vehicle in use. Sorry it took so long to restore. Previous nomination:
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kriéger Landaulette. It's CSS cropped in articles, but I think it's useful to have the full size.
Support Good job fixing the botched retouching! --
Janke |
Talk 11:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Janke: Honestly, the sad thing is it probably wasn't exactly botched. If it was meant for a newspaper or the like, exaggerating the mouth lines might have been valuable - and the resolution woukdn't have been high enough for anyone to care about the zoomed-in effect. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.8% of all
FPs 16:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2019 at 21:53:33 (UTC)
Reason
Fixed the top of the cup after the criticism in the
last nomination of the top of the cup being cut off. Enough of the edge still exists that, with perspective, it's easy to reconstruct the top edge.
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.8% of all
FPs 21:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Did she really say her rights were "fragrantly disregarded" or is that a typo for "flagrantly"? If the former, we need a [sic]. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 23:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Typo. I checked the source, and corrected the article. Don't know how I missed that. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.8% of all
FPs 14:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
It would work well with a certain type of humor, though. –
Sca (
talk) 14:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support – Not bad for a century-old photo. I like the quasi-Statue of Liberty pose. –
Sca (
talk) 14:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Question. Is it considered acceptable to extrapolate significant portions of the image out of thin air, call it a restoration, and not even mention it in the caption? It's a fine image now, but shouldn't it be more clearly labeled as a photo-illustration rather than calling it a photo? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 22:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
It is just the top of a cup, part of which was there before. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.8% of all
FPs 05:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The restoration is mentioned in the file info, albeit buried in the version list... Might better be mentioned in the file description. --
Janke |
Talk 06:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support.--
Vulphere 15:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support after the update to the description. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 21:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
@
David Eppstein: Sorry about that! I added it when I saw Janke's suggestion, but didn't think to mention it here until now. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.9% of all
FPs 22:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2019 at 18:56:24 (UTC)
Reason
High quality image of a bird that barely stops while feeding. FP on Commons. National bird of Palestine. On first nomination received 4 support votes (
Chris Woodrich,
Yann,
Brandmeister) including nominator. No oppose votes.
Remember Wikipedia surrounds it with white, which may bias viewers of the thumbnail a little bit. I also think it's fine, though I suppose, since acceptable exposure is a range, a little tweaking would be acceptable, but not too much. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.9% of all
FPs 15:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.8% of all
FPs 14:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Support either. Eye-catching, high-quality, and encyclopedic. I'm curious about something: the caption explains the red feathers in her hair (a mark of royalty) but not the thing she's carrying, which (from its appearance in the rest of the set) appears to be some kind of ceremonial weapon, possibly a mace. Would it be possible to track down an explanation and add it to the caption? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 16:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Support in principle – as an intriguing and engaging human image (Could be cropped a bit on both sides.) However, the person to the subject's left (right side of frame) really must be identified also. –
Sca (
talk) 22:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)reply
There's a crop at
File:Princess Sikhanyiso Dlamini-001.jpg but I think it's too tight and cuts off the other princess's face. But I think cropping from the left side only, down to around a 5x4 aspect ratio, could help focus attention on the subject better. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 23:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)reply
We know the person next to her is another member of the royal family. Probably Princess Temaswati Dlamini, given she's the only one of about the right age. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.8% of all
FPs 01:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Conditional support, prefer original - please identify the other person in the image.
MER-C 10:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
@
MER-C: I mean, it's probably Princess Temaswati Dlamini, but I'm not going to be able to provide sources for that other than lists of the Eswatini royalty and identified photographs of her from a few years later. Only royalty is allowed that headdress, though. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.8% of all
FPs 15:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
FYI, several other Wikis use a very tightly cropped version with their Sikhanyiso Dlamini articles. It excludes all but the other person's ear, which obviates the ID issue, although aesthetically it's less interesting. → –
Sca (
talk) 16:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
We could just say "another member of the royal family" in the caption. I think that part is clear enough. Searching Getty Images for Temaswati finds images of her in similar costume from 2004, 2005, and 2007, but unfortunately not 2006, and the 2005 image shows several other young women also wearing the red feathers, so I think we can't just assume that this is Temaswati. There is also another photo from 2006, but without names; she is third in the line after the leader of the dance and then Sikhanyiso, suggesting that she probably is indeed Temaswati, but again there are quite a few others with red feathers. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 17:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Please excuse me for saying so, but from a journalistic point of view, saying "another member of" would be laughably tantamount to saying "and someone else, whose name we failed to get." –
Sca (
talk) 22:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
It is clear that we do not have documentation for the name. Why do you think it is inappropriate or laughable to say so? Do you think we should try to cover it up or pretend to knowledge that we don't have? Do you think we also need the name of the blurred woman in the left margin or the blurred man on the right? Does our lack of knowledge of these things somehow turn this into a bad photo of Sikhanyiso Dlamini, or of the reed dance? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 22:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
People shown in FPs should be identified. Otherwise readers will be left asking, "Who's this?" -
Sca (
talk) 01:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – There is no need for the other person's name. The composition centers on the princess, the other person is incidental to the composition, especially with the blade in front of her face. The article, the EV and the photo all center on the princess. The Alt 1 crop is too tight, the origonal is better, it shows the princess in a group setting, and doesn't cut off her pole awkwardly on the left.
Bammesk (
talk) 03:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Due to lack of ID for second person in photo. I do so reluctantly, but I can't endorse cavalier disregard for established and logical editorial practice. –
Sca (
talk) 13:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)reply
I have emailed some people about the ID of the person right. How is the etiquette about voting on the own photograph?
Amada44talk to me 13:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Photographers support, or nominate and support their own photos all the time.
MER-C 13:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
If the ID were found, I'd support.
Sca (
talk) 14:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Support Alt 1 is a bit better. No need for the name of the other person. –
Yann (
talk) 17:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm leaning towards opposition while the second subject is unidentified. Perhaps it would be worth putting this on hold while it's looked into?
Josh Milburn (
talk) 19:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose I don't find the stated reason as compelling the promotion of an average composition.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 20:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Hold for a few weeks until
Amada44 can come back with ID for the second royal in the photograph. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 14:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)reply
that would be nice. I did not hear back but I'll get that name!
Amada44talk to me 18:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Amada44, just so you know an IP
at the Reference Desk has suggested that it may be Princess Tiyandza Dlamini. Just for the record, I support the original conditional on ID. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 21:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Put on holdClosure postponed for 2-3 weeks per above to give time for the identification of the second person in the image.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 21:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[Amended
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 08:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)]reply
I mean, we are in the situation where if
Amada44 supported it, it'd be passing, but it's still better if it is identified. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.9% of all
FPs 06:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support The original. The crop is a bit too tight imho. I am a bit further with the ID of the person right, but not quite there yet.
Amada44talk to me 11:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Armbrust: if this nomination is listed as "on hold" (as it is), what do you mean by claiming that there can be no more supports and by striking the support that was added after it was put on hold? Do you intend that we should continue to keep this on hold until the identity issue is resolved but then go back and count only the opinions that were expressed before it went on hold, even though some of the opinions are explicitly based on the missing information that caused the hold? What is the point of putting a nomination into such a "frozen but will automatically fail once it unfreezes" state? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 00:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
@
David Eppstein: Okay, I may have phrased that poorly. Now fixed. (BTW there are 4 supports and 1 conditional support, so once id is provided it automatically passes.)
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 08:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The second person is still not identified, and without that there isn't enough support for promotion.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 17:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Ambrust: it feels weird to ignore a vote that happened while suspended, but still unsuspend it... Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.9% of all
FPs 20:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Good news, I got an answer. Its Temtsimba Dlamini. Cheers,
Amada44talk to me 10:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)reply
@
TracyMcClark: yes! thank you! I pursued that but I found it really hard to say if its really her because of the age difference and that there are not many pictures of her. Sikhanyiso confirmed it so now we know 100% :) Cheers,
Amada44talk to me 11:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)reply
You're right although her cute nose is quite unique.
--TMCk (
talk) 11:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Fantastic work! We need more Eswatini images at FP, so I'm going to have to dig through your photography, Amada. Unless you'd rather? Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.9% of all
FPs 16:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
MER-C 19:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: Thanks so much. This is very meaningful to me, as Sonoma winemaking has been close to my heart ever since moving to the U.S. Btw I’m planning a project to cover wine making in California for 2020. So, more to come… —
Frank Schulenburg (
talk) 20:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Some of the grapes don't look all healthy, have damage, so better images must exist or can be taken. Waiting for more to come! :-) --
Janke |
Talk 20:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I also find the composition rather messy, with distracting background. --
Janke |
Talk 08:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support Minor damage, nothing more. It'd be weird to have everything perfect, in my opinion. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.8% of all
FPs 04:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support – Very natural, good specimen, and nice lighting. We don't want a photo one can find in a coffee table book but rather an authentic representative photo, which this very much is. The subject
veraison is very well represented here. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 09:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Well I do want a photo I could find in a coffee table book.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 10:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Commons is
over there. I want photos that I would find in a modern good encyclopedia. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 19:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose – good EV, but the shadows (lighting) and background can be better, per Janke a better image can be taken.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 04:48:33 (UTC)
Reason
A fine image of someone I've wanted to have an image for for years. Author of many books, amongst which Little Women is probably the most famous, Civil War nurse and abolitionist, she has a fascinating life. Before this, the best image we had of her was teeny-tiny and badly over exposed.
Support as nominator –
Tomer T (
talk) 19:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm somewhat unsure about the marking. It's otherwise very good. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.9% of all
FPs 20:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support – EV. I am Ok with the marking, for encyclopedic use. Focus looks a bit off on top-left corner, but that's because a couple of bees are climbing on top of others!! The composition makes up for it.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support. I like the marking; what it takes away from in-the-wild authenticity, it adds back in viewer ease of picking out the queen given the description in the caption. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 05:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm also unsure about the marking. Is this standard practice in apiaries or entomological research? (I should know this, but I don't.)
Josh Milburn (
talk) 19:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: Yes, marking queen bees is standard practice in beekeeping, at least over here in Germany. I happen to know a club of beekeepers and they have shown me queen bees they had purchased from breeders and which are always marked. The chosen form of marking for each group of species is nicely presented in the article
Animal identification enlisted above. Someone could surely provide an second image with an unmarked queen bee, but, however, this image displaying a marked queen bee accompanied by a throng of worker bees AND all in nigh-perfect focus well illustrates the central theme "marked queen bee" and is certainly worthy of featured picture status. Maybe the title should be extended accordingly. Caveat: My mainstay is at
Wiki commons thus I regrettably cannot vote for support here, lacking the required number of wikipedia edits. --
Franz van Duns (
talk) 14:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Useful comments. If the file title is changed, I would withdraw my oppose.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 09:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I cannot think of a qualifying justification for a rename at Commons. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 23:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support – I have read the discussion above and I am now convinced. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 23:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Charlesjsharp: I really can't get too worried about the week timer when the page it's on hadn't been edited for two months before than. But the article seems very crowded with images, with this shoved at the bottom, so I'm not convinced by usage at the moment. I'd fix up its use in the article and come back. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.9% of all
FPs 04:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – photo has wow factor and is technically good. But
the article is weak, too short. It will improve the
encyclopedic value if the article can be expanded by a paragraph or two. Also this photo is competing with the infobox image which is an impressive photo, more so given the article is so short.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - I love archaelogical sites of all kinds: excavations, ruins, and also reconstructions as depicted. --
Franz van Duns (
talk) 21:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Corrected my previous "support" to "comment", as I lack the required number of Wikipedia edits, thus not yet being entitled to vote. I guess I had mistakenly assumed I was voting for a Wiki Commons Featured picture candidate. --
Franz van Duns (
talk) 12:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak support. Shame about the modern buildings impinging on the upper left but it looks difficult to find a viewpoint that would avoid them and give a similarly-good remaining composition. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 05:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Tempio Capitolino Piazza del Foro Brescia.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 18:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 17:50:07 (UTC)
Reason
It is the first cross-eyed stereo image included in the
stereoscopy article and one of very few cross-eyed stereo images at all, Featured picture (also Quality image) within the category "plants" on Wiki commons, POTD 2019-08-14 on French Wikipedia, high-resolution image, link to stereoscopy article on French wikipedia.
Comment Needs to be in article for 7 days to be eligible. Shall we wait, or will you re-nominate is when 7 days have passed? Tentative support. --
Janke |
Talk 19:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Oops, many thanks for this crucial hint! I admit I had overlooked this statement
"min. 7 days wait after adding to the article before nominating" on my highly exciting journey through the ways and wends of Wikipedia's numerous regulation pages, coming as I am from just over a year's membership at Wiki commons with its slightly different set of nomination proceedings. Yes, of course, I am absolutely willing to comply and thus agree to wait the required 7 days' latency period (i.e. from 15 August till 23 August 2019) before proceeding, and I'll surely wait for the required 7 days should I ever nominate another image. But in this case I do think this image's encyclopaedic value will entice enough supporters within the given time span and will thus justify this extra quarantine period. --
Franz van Duns (
talk) 21:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – I have tried to look at this in 3D, but no luck! Am I missing something, is there a technique, glasses, etc?
Bammesk (
talk) 00:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)reply
For some people, it's simply impossible. You can at least try by displaying the pair in a smaller size (say, 100 mm or so), then concentrate your focus on your own nose tip, and slowly let your eye muscles relax. At some point the images (may hopefully) coalesce, and you see the 3-D image. This one is really good, BTW. --
Janke |
Talk 07:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)reply
As Janke correctly states, cross-eyed viewing is impossible for some people (including my wife and others I have tested in this request, check
Stereoscopy#Visual_requirements), but it is otherwise very handy for unaided viewing straight from the screen, as no viewing apparatus is required. Works astoundingly well (at least for me) even if the stereo pair is displayed at full screen size, thus providing a level of detail not possible with standard stereo viewers due to their limited image size. See article
Stereoscopy#Freeviewing, which explains the two possible arrangements for stereo viewing. For all others I have supplied a version arrranged for parallel viewing (click on the above image and scroll to "Other versions"), which can be viewed under a
stereoscope / stereoscopic viewer after having been resized to a range between 60x60 mm and 100x100 mm each image. And, for any other purpose, e.g. stereo viewing of individual sections of a stereo image, I have also supplied the two single images which compose the stereo pairs. Just enlarge these, each within its own individual window, say to 50%, then shift both images until the detail you are interested in is centered in each window. Arrange the two windows (R-L or L-R) as required for your chosen viewing method and now enjoy an abundancy of details within this section in full stereo that even a full screen display simply cannot render. This is only possible if the images, as here, are provided with a relatively high resolution. Caveat: I know that this is, of course, not encyclopaedic information, but it may be of value for others who have difficulties viewing stereo images or for those who intend to enhance their knowledge about methods of viewing images. I have been taking stereo images for quite a number of years and would designate myself as an experienced photography amateur, now retired, with a background of astrophysics. Would it help if I extended the section
Freeviewing by a concise version of "What must I do? I simply can't see any stereo effect." or similar. Who would I as a newbie have to contact ahead before adding any unwelcome text and thus possibly causing an uproar amongst a multitude of seasoned editors? My wiki experience to date is limited to some 50 image uploads to Wiki commons and, well, to this particular image as my first and singular addition to wikipedia. --
Franz van Duns (
talk) 13:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)reply
See your talk page, I commented there. --
Janke |
Talk 17:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC) - Thanks!reply
Do you have an image with only a single flower in it? I'm thinking you can substitute the infobox image in
Passiflora caerulea with such an image. Anyway, one flower in the pair has the same physical resolution and better DOF than that image. The seven day waiting period is a good idea to sit out, this is one of those topics that has a high turnover of images. If it sticks, then support. But suspend for a week first.
MER-C 14:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)reply
@MER-C: Many thanks for your suggestion. I propose the following image, taken in June 2019:
File:Passiflora-caerulea 2019-06-23 (DSC2447-1).jpg. In the past two months I have taken quite a number of Passiflora images at different angles and sizes, some of which I intend to upload soon; some are side views, some taken from underneath, and some focussed on the centre features. The Passiflora vine that produced these images is still flowering and I am continuously taking images as long as this lasts. Are you asking me to replace the existing image in
Passiflora caerulea without consulting anyone ahead? OK, I have read Janke's comment on my talk page regarding addition of new content to wikipedia, and all my contributions to Wiki commons are, of course, new content, but do the same rules also apply to replacement of existing content? I emphasize that I have great respect for all those who have agreeably contributed to the Wiki universe over many years and do not want to create unnecessary antagonisms by disrespectfully ignoring any of the unwritten rules that govern which content may be replaced and which must remain. This said I deduce that a tentative entry on the corresponding "talk page" would be the correct entrée. Ok with you? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Franz van Duns (
talk •
contribs) 20:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Conditional Support per MER-C.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)reply
FYI The image was added to the article on Aug. 15th, so it becomes eligible already on the 22nd. --
Janke |
Talk 07:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment on my behalf: with the clock ticking relentlessly and only just over 50 hours to go, this one last ploy on my own behalf. This stereo image of two flowers was explicitly entered into as a Featured picture candidate for Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment, not of the individual
flower I replaced on the page
Passiflora caerulea, even though the depicted object certainly has its non-technical charms. It isn't perfect, no picture truely is, but the following technical considerations do give support to my entry: this image is an example of a photographic technique rarely practiced nowadays, it reproduces all colours without undue exaggeration, and it displays a tremendous amount of detail from one edge to the other, even if fully viewed at a resolution only few contemporary camera sensors can provide. Other versions supplied are a parallel-view stereo version for use with a stereoscope and also the two individual images. IMHO images of this kind enrich the technical expertise and scope of wikipedia and thus qualify for Featured picture status. Now it is up to you to comment and/or vote ... --
Franz van Duns (
talk) 13:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I concur, and strike "tentative" from my post above. --
Janke |
Talk 18:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support, though I cannot get the stereoscopic effect to work (at any reasonable size) with something that wide, so I need to take your word for it being good. An image taller than it is wide is way easier to stereoscope. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.9% of all
FPs 16:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)reply
It absolutely works. Personally, I can merge cross-eyed images of up to 300 mm width at normal monitor viewing distance, but that really strains the eye muscles - and I look like
Ben Turpin. This one, displayed about 150 mm wide on my setup is a cinch. YMMV... ;-) --
Janke |
Talk 18:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 07:00:42 (UTC)
Reason
While aspects of it are problematic, I'm a fan of history in the raw, and not trying to hide the problematic aspects of otherwise good movements. This poster is in
Ableism for a reason. But it's also a fine example of a notable suffragette and artist's work, and, while we have images of suffragettes, we have very little of their propaganda, which makes it rather valuable.
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.9% of all
FPs 07:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
If only we could prohibit lunatics from voting. –
Sca (
talk) 13:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support with context. There's a significant literature in women's history and disability history focusing on how eugenic feminism informed the suffrage movements of North America and the UK (and I assume others). It wasn't a side story; "(white) women deserve the vote more than X" was a favorite argument, and effective in times of intense racism, nativism, and ableism. This image represents an ugly but important strain of suffrage rhetoric. –
Penny Richards (
talk) 14:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Incidentally, we have an article on
eugenic feminism that could probably stand improvement (a while back, I put some work into making it slightly better than absolutely dreadful).
XOR'easter (
talk) 21:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – article is too weak, too short. Can it be expanded by a paragraph (or two)? It will improve the encyclopedic value. It will have my support if it is expanded a little.
Bammesk (
talk) 00:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC) . . . Support, I hadn't seen the second and third articles listed above. It would be nice if Emily Harding's article was a bit longer though.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Absolutely agree on your latter point, so I've made some additions and improvements to the article.
Penny Richards (
talk) 03:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Corrected my previous "support" to "comment", as I lack the required number of Wikipedia edits, thus not yet being entitled to vote. I had mistakenly assumed I was voting for a Wiki Commons Featured picture candidate. --
Franz van Duns (
talk) 12:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Convicts Lunatics and Women! Have No Vote for Parliament, ca. 1907-1918.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 08:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 18:56:03 (UTC)
Reason
As it stands, this is probably the best image we have for this heavily photographed subject, and certainly is better than previously delisted FPs. Passed Commons FPC unanimously a few months ago. May replace existing FP
File:Crepuscular rays at Sunset near Waterberg Plateau edit.jpg if successful. The other FP,
File:Crepuscular rays in ggp 2.jpg, has found uses in illustrating the place it was taken (and should be rescoped accordingly).
Can we distinguish crepuscular rays from clouds and crepuscular rays from nearby objects, and feature both? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 17:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment According to the article
Sunbeam, of which
Crepuscular rays is a subsection, the depicted rays are not crepuscular rays (i.e. when the sun is below the horizon), but sunbeams (when the sun is at some point in the sky, shining through openings in clouds or between other objects). I am no expert for sunrays of any kind, and I give great trust in wikipedia's content, which accurately conforms with the statements in the following article
britannica.com: crepuscular-ray. The current entanglement of usage is also prominent by this image being (a) titled "Sunbeams over Lake Hawea, New Zealand" in the
Sunbeam article and (b) "Sunlight shining through clouds, giving rise to crepuscular rays" in the
Sunlight article. I really like this image as it nicely combines sunbeams and clouds of mist rising from the sea, and which, by the way, gains yet more at full resolution, and I thus would vote for full support (were I entitled - still 41 wikipedia edits to go ...). But, and this is important, all wikipedia contributions should be as accurate as possible, which may mean rewriting incorrect captions. All taken I pledge for a new scope in the manner of Featured picture for sunbeams instead of (incorrectly attributed) crepuscular rays. --
Franz van Duns (
talk) 13:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – good photo and EV, but neutral on voting. The article has no inline citations, the refs and external links don't look substantial.
Bammesk (
talk) 03:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support I'm not sure this is the best dragonfly you've done, but it's certainly above the bar. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.9% of all
FPs 00:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Corrected "support" to "comment", as I lack the required number of Wikipedia edits, thus not yet being entitled to vote. I had mistakenly assumed I was voting for a Wiki Commons Featured picture candidate. --
Franz van Duns (
talk) 12:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – Fulsomely toned target article deficient in documentation. –
Sca (
talk) 13:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Even though the the lower quarter of the image (mainly grass, but also a plaque at bottom right) is rather soft, a technical shortcoming which also applies to the tips of the windmill vanes, this image nevertheless is of extraordinary encyclopaedic value. According to the
corresponding article it may be the very first windmill of its kind, and if this is the best image, then IMHO let it be the Featured picture for its kind. Caveat: Due to a lack of Wikipedia edits (currently 34), I am not entitled to vote, but I'm plodding on towards the 100 edits margin. --
Franz van Duns (
talk) 12:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – I would support if some of the citation needed tags are addressed in the article.
Bammesk (
talk) 03:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC) . . . I added some external links.
Bammesk (
talk) 15:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – I am leaning to oppose. The article is weak, just one line. Also there is a nice set of 4 images in the article, albeit not alive.
Bammesk (
talk) 03:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)reply