Support as nominator –
Q28 (
talk) 17:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)reply
If this picture became a featured pictures, I hope to place it on June 1, because this picture fits well with Children's Day.
Q28 (
talk) 17:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Awwww. –
Sca (
talk) 19:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Support – good depiction of yawning in the
Yawn article. It's better than the infobox image IMO.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Support –
Yann (
talk) 18:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Support. Probably a good call not to explicitly identify them. Imagine having your school google your name and you becoming known as Yawn Girl? With the power of making thousands of millions yawn? Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 23:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Support – Needs a fifth. --
Janke |
Talk 10:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2022 at 03:05:49 (UTC)
Reason
Interesting car brand. From 1993 to 2013
Wiesmann GmbH specialized in producing hand-built custom cars and produced about 180 cars per year. In 2013 the company stopped producing cars and it has been going through business restructuring since then. This photo shows the company's MF 3 model. There wasn't a big variety of models and the MF 3 is a good representation of all models up until 2003. This is a quality photo. FP on Commons.
Comment Nice car, but badly parked. Shiny cars must be like shiny frogs. A nightmare to photograph. As for composition, I'm no car photographer but the tree could be better placed, the windows lowered so we can see into the car and the driver's seat back in position.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 09:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Charlesjsharp: Rarity should probably count for something here. 180 or so cars a year for about 20 years is rare enough, even presuming all survive, that I'm inclined to forgive a bit. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 11:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)reply
At the same time, though, if w'reecting this one for background and lighting, one has to ask whether any lighting or background would be acceptable? If it's cloudy, people will reject it for that. If it has other cars in the background, then it would be voted down for that. It feels like we're setting up every possible photo for failure. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 03:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
Yann (
talk) 18:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Support Any photo with an article probably deserves FP status (if well-reproduced). And this is a very iconic photo. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 23:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Support The image obviously possesses an uncommonly powerful symbolic value and as such has acquired iconic cultural status.
O'Dea (
talk) 00:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Support EV overcomes any artistic deficiencies. --
Janke |
Talk 08:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Support A genuinely iconic photo.
Nick-D (
talk) 09:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:United States President Barack Obama bends down to allow the son of a White House staff member to touch his head.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 06:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - It would be nice if capitalisation and use of hyphen here was consistent. It's clear that 'white-faced' is correctly hyphenated, but different sources disagree about hyphenating 'storm petrel'. There is no need for capitals in the common name of a species.
ProfDEH (
talk) 10:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment You are not correct
ProfDEH in your didactic criticism. Birds Britannica uses White-faced Storm-petrel. American usage favours capitals, British usage is often lower case. Both White-faced Storm-Petrel and White-faced storm-petrel can be used. It is unusual for storm petrel to be unhyphenated, but it is found, and not only on Wikipedia.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 15:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
By the same logic you would capitalise Fox or Seagull surely. But my objection is mainly that name on the image and in the article are different.
ProfDEH (
talk) 13:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
The use of capitals is usually determines by a publication's style guide. Here on Wikipedia, there is no such constraint. And on the subject of bird names, there is no such bird as a seagull!
Charlesjsharp (
talk)
Since files from Commons are used on a wide variety of Wikipedias and other projects, trying to standardise that isn't really that doable. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 17:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Support – Nice capture, good comp. –
Sca (
talk) 12:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment I thought we were still against stubs?
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 15:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
It's just shy of 300 words, so there's enough there for an acceptable TFP copy block, but the brevity of the article would probably lessen the TFP chances for this nom. –
Sca (
talk) 12:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I'd say it's borderline Start-class. It has all expected basic information, and a few good sources. It could certainly be better, but it's a bit more than just a stub. SupportAdam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 13:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2022 at 18:25:53 (UTC)
Reason
Renominating this. It was
nominated previously but it needed restoration. Isambard Kingdom Brunel, a renowned engineer of the industrial revolution, at the launching of
SS Great Eastern (ship designed by him) in 1857. An iconic image of the industrial era of the 19th century. For details see the lead sections of
[1] and
[2].
Support as nominator –
Bammesk (
talk) 18:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Support Good version of a famous and much-used photo. The article on the photo does a good job of explaining its significance, as a rare example from this era of a worksite photo.
Nick-D (
talk) 07:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Support Iconic. --
Janke |
Talk 08:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Support. I suppose I should weigh in, given that I anchored down the previous nomination with my opposition. Anyway, this is a famous image that we should have a FP-quality version of, and now we do. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 17:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Robert Howlett (Isambard Kingdom Brunel Standing Before the Launching Chains of the Great Eastern), The Metropolitan Museum of Art - restoration1.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 20:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Also, Support, though I'd trim the bottom a smidgen or readd any cropped headroom, as it looks unbalanced vertically. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 11:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
And I presume he's aware of this nomination Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 12:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Anyone can crop it if they upload it as a different filename. Whether anyone should or not is debatable. Personally I prefer it as is.
Bammesk (
talk) 13:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)reply
If so, it could not be presented as the work of the originator (as here).
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 08:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Support despite the artifacts.
MER-C 14:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2022 at 18:59:27 (UTC)
Reason
Somewhat of a forgotten author nowadays, but with three films based on her work and a photo by the very talented
Zaida Ben-Yusuf, who can resist? (I hope that's not setting myself up for sarcastic responses)
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 18:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Support – but I don't know why you enlarged the original?
Bammesk (
talk) 01:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Bammesk: Do you mean the file size? I accidentally saved at 90% quality the first time and usually go 99%. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 10:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Adam Cuerden: No, I mean the pixel count. If we remove the borders of the original
[3] we get approximately a 2500 x 4200 pixel image. But the nom image is about 3200 x 5500.
Bammesk (
talk) 00:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm going to withdraw the nomination and be back shortly. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 15:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2022 at 23:42:04 (UTC)
Reason
Sorry this wasn't ready when
TheFreeWorld kindly
nominated it, but it's done now. You could argue whether
one other image or this one is the best we have of Lockwood, but I think everyone would agree this is the better composed one, just both are valuable in their own way, and this has been stable in her article's lead (
despite some pretty distracting damage in the unrestored version) since about 2019.
Comment - can something be done about the shadow at the bottom; it somehow draws your attention away from the photo itself, accentuating the buckling of the cardboard backing - especially since it is not a part of the photo itself... --
Janke |
Talk 10:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't generally like to do so as it makes the image look substantially more artificial when there's a textured background that doesn't quite follow the rules of optics. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 13:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose – At a mere 88 words, so-called article is a sliver of a stub. Anyway, the image is just a guy in a suit holding papers. (And this user can raise one eyebrow at a time, too.) –
Sca (
talk) 13:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose – No EV whatsoever. To quote Bugs Bunny: "Never heard of him - wrong number!" - even though he's a compatriot Finn! --
Janke |
Talk 20:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
It fails
FP criterion #2 1500px requirement. So Oppose. I don't see Janke's EV rationale though. The image adds as much EV to his article as any portrait does to a biography article.
Bammesk (
talk) 13:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)reply
By "no EV" I mean that IMO the whole article is incongruous here in the English-language Wikipedia. Even in the Finnish Wiki, his article is only a stub... --
Janke |
Talk 17:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)reply
The article clearly belongs, as it passes
WP:NPOL. It is definitely a stub, though. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 17:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
FP criteria doesn't address article quality. My opinion on stubs is in
this diff. Weak articles are addressed at
POTD guidelines: "if the article chosen to accompany the picture is not up to scratch (...), the appearance may be delayed until there is a suitable article to accompany the picture."
Bammesk (
talk) 03:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2022 at 17:19:24 (UTC)
Reason
One of the most famous April Fool's pranks ever concocted. I think this would be a great video to show for at least next year. It has great EV for it's page and it overall a funny moment for the BBC.
Support Alt 1 – I uploaded a higher resolution webm version. I converted the higher resolution 640x480px mpeg4 original from the same source
[4] to webm.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Support Alt 1 – The webm version does look better.
GamerPro64 03:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2022 at 12:56:26 (UTC)
Reason
A few months ago I nominated this image, got one neutral-leaning-oppose (I think) comment and it closed as "not promoted" but perhaps second time is the charm. So,
this article has already one
featured picture but I think it can have more than one. This image does illustrate three other particular properties of fumarolic minerals that are discussed in sources but are currently not very well illustrated - their multicoloured appearance, the crust-like and how they are deposited on the surfaces of rock cavities. These aspects are discussed in the article but the current lead image does not cover them as well as this one does. Neither image captures all aspects of fumarole minerals perfectly - the current lead image shows the delicate structures better -, but together they cover most aspects of fumarolic minerals. I've expanded the article a little so that it discusses their appearance a bit more.
German and English Wikipedia say that there is a red high-temperature form which is stable for some time after cooling.
This source that discusses thallium iodide from fumaroles also says that they did encounter the unstable cubic conformation in fumarole deposits and that the transition to the "normal" orthorombic form is slow.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk) 08:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose – At 175 words of text, target is a stub. –
Sca (
talk) 13:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I looked at the articles of the last 65 flower FPs in the category:
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers, (65 takes us back to 2009), and 16 of the 65 have short articles very comparable to the
nominated image article (that's 25%). There is no basis in the
FP criteria to oppose short articles, just because they are short. All that's needed is the "image adding significant EV to the article" (criterion #5), that's all the requirement there is. My opinion on stub articles is in
this Diff.
Bammesk (
talk) 03:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
Bammesk (
talk) 02:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment. This is not even the most prominent image of sliced fresh figs in the linked article, nor the most appetizing one. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 17:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Prominence is a plus, but it's not a requirement. Reviewers have discretion on that.
Bammesk (
talk) 03:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2022 at 18:59:22 (UTC)
Reason
As with the
previous nomination, it's a very strong image by an excellent photographer. I redid the restoration as I somehow managed to expand the image the first time. Presumably some consequence of updating GIMP and finding some new feature.
Support as nominator –
MER-C 10:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - assuming that these flowers are not on the same plant, isn't the photo slightly misleading? (File text "growing together in the forest" is also open to misunderstanding...) --
Janke |
Talk 19:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Support – I edited the article's image caption and rewrote the file description. I don't think it's misleading. There is EV in depicting the color variation.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
Bammesk (
talk) 12:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment There's a lot going for this, but does it seen a bit dark to anyone else, like the Brightness/Contrast is slightly dull? I'll check again when I get home to it less lighting on my tablet, though. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 15:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Adam, I don't see anything wrong.
This FP nom on Commons is pretty much the same and it's passing.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
That's edited for color, this isn't.
Sea Cow (
talk) 01:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
To be clear, I don't see a large issue on the color with this video, I just am recognizing the difference.
Sea Cow (
talk) 01:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I think Support on the whole. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 18:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
FP criteria isn't specific and not sure noms are the right venue for this. You might want to start a thread at the
FPC talk page.
Bammesk (
talk) 23:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2022 at 12:39:49 (UTC)
Reason
A fine old poster for a fascinating fellow. In the era of orientalism, it was common to make oneself up as an Asian mystic for your magic act. Long Tack Sam (A somewhat loose Anglicisation of Lung Te Shan) was from China. Article on him could be better, but it's not appalling or anything. Un-fun fact: If this passes, this'll only be the fourth person of Asian descent in the whole category. Might have to do a bit of an
Asian History Month celebration next month. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 12:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Studio of Adolph Friedlander; Restored by
Adam Cuerden
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 12:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Support - I see we have a FP of
Thurston(small by today's FPCr), but none of
Houdini??? --
Janke |
Talk 13:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Should check some of my newer sources. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 13:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I haven't zoomed it in - and some of the Smithsonian images are really, really dust-encrusted - but, offhand,
[7]? Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 14:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Well, help yourself to it. Looks like my laptop finally have up the ghost. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 20:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2022 at 02:34:41 (UTC)
Reason
This was
nominated previously and had the votes to pass (7 supports). The copyright wasn't clear so I withdrew the nomination. Now it has survived a
deletion request on Commons. I renominated it in December
[8] but participation was low. I hope this time it passes. See the reason section of
the first nomination for why I am nominating it and the lead section of
her article.
Support as nominator –
Bammesk (
talk) 02:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I can't help but think this is one of those perennially appearing images; I'm sure I've seen some variant of this a few times before. And I think the reason is that it's good, but flawed, and those things war. It's undersized; maybe that's mitigated by the aspect ratio, though. It's pretty grainy; that could well be original. I do think there's reasons it keeps appearing, though, so., although I think the fade-out is a bit over-cooked - no paper texture remains - my inclination is Support, but I'd love to replace this with a better copy one day. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 23:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2022 at 00:20:22 (UTC)
Reason
The photo is of high technical standard and resolution. The photo is included in an article of C status and has been recognised with a DYK hook on the front page. The article has a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license, adds value to Wikipedia and is easily verifiable.
Oppose Uninteresting composition, and the railing(?) in the bottom right corner spoils the photo. I note that the photo was taken with an iPhone: for an architecture image like this to be a FP, it would likely need to have been taken with a proper camera to give assurance that it's as high quality a photo as is possible.
Nick-D (
talk) 23:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment To be honest, modern iPhones (starting from #7) have amazingly good cameras - I see no blatant focus or aberration problems in this photo. True, the railing mars the composition, but cropping would cut the reflection and mar the composition even more. Weak support because of interesting architecture and high EV. --
Janke |
Talk 09:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2022 at 23:34:58 (UTC)
Reason
A rather nice image of a World War II destroyer, better than most of the ship images I've seen coming out of
WP:MILHIST's articles-undergoing-improvement lists for a while. And I wanted something to test out my new laptop with (Thanks, Dad! You really helped out here), so something not ridiculously difficult seemed a good idea.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2022 at 07:28:26 (UTC)
Reason
High quality, high resolution portrait that both depicts the individual as well as the traditional presidential regalia of the country (the
presidential sash and —more importantly— the historical medal). High EV as this is the only high resolution, public domain portrait of Mesa during his presidency.
Comment – Official govt. photos usually aren't of much reader interest, IMO. –
Sca (
talk) 13:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure that's a great rule when it comes to underphotographed countries. For America, sure. Bolivia.... Weak Support because the composition of a busy painting behind him weakens it too much for me. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 19:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment – at full size the sharpness and details are subpar for a 2004 photo.
Bammesk (
talk) 03:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2022 at 04:10:25 (UTC)
Reason
An iconic Buster Keaton movie that was was one of the first 25 films inducted in the
National Film Registry. This might be the best quality of the film on here and definitely has the EV for its respective page.
Support as nominator –
GamerPro64 04:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Support -- Excellent video quality (not apparent in the still), also a most famous film, top EV! --
Janke |
Talk 12:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Can the still be changed to another, recognizable frame from the film? (Say, Keaton sitting on the coupling rod of the loco?) --
Janke |
Talk 15:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Done, see
this for how to. It can be done in the article too.
Bammesk (
talk) 16:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Great, thanks! (Even though that's the coupler, not the
coupling rod... anyway, it's just as good - or even better! ;-) --
Janke |
Talk 19:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
To be fair, when nominating movies here there is not timestamp section in the template. So you can't really add a timestamp until after you make the nomination.
GamerPro64 21:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2022 at 00:39:50 (UTC)
Reason
A fine poster from the Paris première, and part of my goal to celebrate every Massenet opera. Quite like the portrayal of the characters as Roman statues - it's clever, and visually appealing. Article is kinda stubby, but probably just about long enough; I'll try to bulk it up before the main page. Rotation is kind of a bodge; there's no universal solution - level out the text and the sides are tilted; level out the sides and the bottom is tilted - so I tried for the best compromise.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2022 at 17:42:23 (UTC)
Reason
I don't know how well she's known at FPC, but
Penny Richards is a phenomenal researcher who's constantly finding interesting people that deserve more attention to write articles about, and, as such, when she suggested this photo of Jacobson, I was determined to do it. Then took two weeks to do so because I really don't know why; probably made sense at the time. Anyway! It's an excellent photo. I've cropped it a bit - while providing the restored full-size image as well - since photographs of this era were pretty routinely cropped for publication, and I didn't think the bottom half of a framed picture and such were really intended for the final shot. And, as I said, full size image is readily available.
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political seems by far the best. Assistant Secretary of Agriculture doesn't feel as political as some appointments, but it is a political appointment, and everything else she did was clearly political.
Support as nominator –
MER-C 14:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment – Not readily apparent what it is. 'Enhancement' makes it look unreal, IMO. –
Sca (
talk) 18:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I'd say it's too misused in the article. The enhancements were meant to emphasise sediment flows and turbulence - valuable information about the Firth. But it's used in the article as an unexplained, uncontextualised lead image, robbing it of encyclopædic value. Reluctant oppose. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 19:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I was thinking the same. I added a more descriptive image caption and cited the source. The image processing by NASA was done to add, and does add, information (a good thing). I might support (I haven't read the article yet).
Bammesk (
talk) 03:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Caption is much improved, but it still feels odd at best to use a false-colour image as the lead. One may well criticise
File:River_Nith_estuary.jpg, but it still gives a reasonably accurate view of the area, instead of making Scotland look like a South Sea isle. This needs a section in the article it supports, and to be next to that section. Don't get me wrong, if it was used for its intended purpose, it would very much deserve FP, and is rightfully an FP on Commons. But it's misleading as used here. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.7% of all
FPs 18:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
MER-C 14:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Dark, somewhat murky. Myriad details not readily accessible to the eye. Tut mir Leid. –
Sca (
talk) 18:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)reply
This is fixable. Part of photo below horizon (NB: soft masking!) can be selectively adjusted for brightness/contrast/curves.
Janke |
Talk 11:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment – I support if the brightness is adjusted, per Janke.
Bammesk (
talk) 18:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply