Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2021 at 13:07:11 (UTC)
Reason
Not only this free work is of a pretty good technical standard and suitable resolution, it is used in various articles showing its EV. This oil painting depicts the culture & history of
Nowruz ceremony.
Oppose – This being en-WP, use in non-English articles doesn't count. It is used in one article
here but the EV is weak, see
FP criterion #5. It doesn't contribute to or enhance the article in a definitive way. For example if the article or its subsections did cover Nowruz related art, then it could have EV. On a sidenote: the image was added to the article on March 22, FP criterion #5 suggests waiting at least 7 days.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Bammesk, does not appear to have sufficient EV in any English Wikipedia article. (
t ·
c) buidhe 05:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
EV: @
Bammesk and
Buidhe: I would like to turn your kind attention towards the fact that, among other things, the painting contains goldfish, water bowl and Sabze, all being the parts of the Haft-sin custom. The painting is depicting these things in an artistic manner. Actually this painting includes "Fire, Earth, Air, Water, and the three life forms of Humans, Animals and Plants." So I guess it is indeed adding to the understanding of the readers hence has EV. --
Mhhosseintalk 06:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
The image is primarily an artistic depiction, rather than an informative depiction. The text of the article(s) don't delve into art though.
Bammesk (
talk) 03:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Throughout the human history, the best method for describing (giving information) on cultural events/symbols had near always been via art. I don't get the point why you say this symbolic painting does not have encyclopedic value. --
Mhhosseintalk 05:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is a lovely painting, though not terribly informative (EV). Also, this digital rendition of the painting is not that high-quality. (Unsharp at full res etc.)
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 18:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator—kallerna 22:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment You'd need to develop this asap from a stub article.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 22:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I disagree with the new attitude that featured pictures must only exist in long articles.
Wikipedia is not finished and having a featured picture in a small article can provide motivation for editors to add content.--
Commander Keane (
talk) 05:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Not shorter than Argiope versicolor that people are supporting below, also used in other articles.
—kallerna 11:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Lead image of its article and it has EV, but it isn't fully sharp, compare for example with
[1],
[2] or
others at full size. Also the shadows aren't complementary, an overcast day can solve this.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose entry level DLSR camera from some years ago cannot deliver FP.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 22:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I disagree with judging Featured pictures based on camera type. I think evaluation should be based on the end result. If sharpness, noise or posterization etc are a problem then mention them specifically.--
Commander Keane (
talk) 05:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I assumed voters here would have a basic understanding of the limitations of a simple camera.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 20:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is a useful image, but the resolution isn't particularly high by modern standards, and for some reason the southern portion of NZ's third island,
Stewart Island / Rakiura, isn't in shot.
Nick-D (
talk) 02:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Nick. Copernicus has much higher resolution.
MER-C 15:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Nick-D, it would also be good to see an image with fewer clouds. (
t ·
c) buidhe 13:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment – Sky is dark but the mountain is lit with daylight, is that natural? It was added to the article on March 25. FP criteria suggests waiting at least 7 days.
Bammesk (
talk) 14:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
Connormah (
talk) 13:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose Bog standard US government portrait shot, with the composition/crop cutting off her right elbow
Nick-D (
talk) 07:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Nick-D (
t ·
c) buidhe 13:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Support. Captivating look from the subject, interesting color mix overall, a bit of welcome bokeh on the flags. The shadow on one side of the face and the slightly off-center composition, and cutting off of the elbow mentioned above, add dynamicism.
Wasted Time R (
talk) 19:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose I wanted to support this, but the focus isn't quite right on top of the issues mentioned above. Her eyes are out of focus, but her arms (closer to camera) are in focus.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 18:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I fixed your link; you don't include the pipe symbol on that style of link.
Matt Deres (
talk) 15:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)reply
*Note; You refer to a squirrel hazel! The hazel in this photo is not. You can see that clearly from the branches.--
Agnes Monkelbaan (
talk) 16:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Support Thank you for nominating my photo.--
Agnes Monkelbaan (
talk) 16:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose the resolution is good but not great. With a higher resolution you would be able to see more details and brushstrokes on this very large nearly 2 meters wide painting. (
t ·
c) buidhe 20:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2021 at 06:27:49 (UTC)
Reason
High-quality portrait of a reclusive yet important international figure. Taken in the
Embassy of Ecuador, London, the building he did not leave for nearly seven years to avoid prosecution.
Support as nominator – (
t ·
c) buidhe 20:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose Colours are over-saturated.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 10:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)reply
It has attracted 8 supports and no opposes on Commons where people apparently disagree. (
t ·
c) buidhe 15:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)reply
It also has pronounced vertical banding which no one has noticed either.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 18:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Conditional Support, if it remains stable in the articles for 7 days from March 30 (when it was added). I agree with the Commons voters and see it more as a map than a natural color photograph. (I am pretty sure the shades of blue correspond to some physical property or properties)
Bammesk (
talk) 02:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment – Yes, it's a better pic for the article, to which it was added (in the infobox) on March 31. Leider, not sure about EV of a 13-year-old photo of a commercial skyscraper complex. This sort of pic has appeared countless times in German media. –
Sca (
talk) 14:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)reply
See Criterion 5. –
Sca (
talk) 14:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment –
Politicsfan4, FYI, I think it's a good portrait but I don't find the composition compelling. He is in
this FP, a family portrait, so the bar is sort of high (at least for this subject).
Bammesk (
talk) 14:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)reply
comment you need to link to the article. But it's only a stub so may not gather much support.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 09:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 09:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Support (
t ·
c) buidhe 09:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Anfiteatro de las ruinas romanas de Itálica, Santiponce, Sevilla, España, 2015-12-06, DD 34-45 PAN HDR.JPG --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 17:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Support – Made me want to know more. Is this something similar to the
tufa formations in California's Mono Lake? --
Janke |
Talk 16:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose An artistic photo but does not represent the old building well from an encyclopaedic standpoint.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 13:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Per Charles. (Looks like it was designed by
Wurlitzer.) –
Sca (
talk) 14:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
MER-C 14:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose - looks messy, would prefer a photo of one or more berries, but not touching each other. --
Janke |
Talk 16:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose Shouldn't be lead image in the blackberries article and I have restored previous image.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 20:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment – I agree that it looks a bit crowded. I think these two photos:
[3],
[4] as a set make a good candidate.
Bammesk (
talk) 14:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I thought it was Beluga caviar – my favorite! –
Sca (
talk) 18:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose blurred hand in foreground.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 10:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak support. I can't overlook the blurred hand, but I share the sentiment in the
Commons FPC nomination.
MER-C 14:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Per Charles. The jumbled composition may be intended, but blurry DOF doesn't work well. –
Sca (
talk) 14:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak support – I agree with the comments in
Commons nomination as well. I doubt a daytime photo would have the same punch (background, foreground separation, lighting.... wow factor).
Bammesk (
talk) 14:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment: I have raised a question about the green tint in this photo at Commons FPC. Please see
this.
cart-Talk 14:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)reply
We certainly do need FPs to be as accurate as possible on colour.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 17:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Support - I uploaded a corrected version over the original, background now grey according to color picker, the sulfur lost most of the green tinge. Reload the page to see the change. PS: Mentioned this on Commons, notified the author. --
Janke |
Talk 18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)reply
FYI: Author re-worked it from raw to same corrected color. --
Janke |
Talk 19:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Sulfur - El Desierto mine, San Pablo de Napa, Daniel Campos Province, Potosí, Bolivia.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 12:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment Obvious artificial lighting, causing a strong color cast. Can it be fixed? --
Janke |
Talk 09:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Looking at these two
[5],
[6], in this cave some lights are neutral and some are warm. I lifted the blue channel a bit and it neutralized the lighting, an improvement. I support either way, and prefer neutralizing the lighting (color cast). Regarding modification, the photographer (uploader) hasn't been active since 2017
[7].
Bammesk (
talk) 01:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I would support if moved to main image and stays for 7 days
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 17:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Support – it related well to the remote location described in the article. Small infobox size wouldn't do it justice.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose The main image is more encyclopaedic. No reason to promote a night-time photo.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 17:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I think the fact that telescopes operate at night might be a bit of a reason, though I agree the composition doesn't convey much. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 13:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Charlesjsharp (
t ·
c) buidhe 07:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment: To me the lighting feels somehow off, giving the image a rather eerie appearance. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 13:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
The background got a slight magenta cast in the edit, can perhaps be fixed even better? Good enough for my support above, though. --
Janke |
Talk 09:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose Gives the very weird impression that nuts are floating in space.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 04:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose miss some shadow and better placing of them --
Petar Milošević (
talk) 07:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Support --
Ivar (
talk) 09:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Support (
t ·
c) buidhe 01:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Walnuts - whole and open with halved kernel.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 20:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply