I think I see an image of the Virgin Mary in the phlegm to the left of the uvula.
Sca (
talk) 14:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. I'm all for good medical photography being promoted (I'm personally pretty impressed by
File:Mantoux tuberculin skin test.jpg and
File:Desinsertion du muscle CO.jpg, for instance), but this really isn't selling itself to me. I suppose it's a difficult genre. I would appreciate the view of some people more familiar with the area than I, though.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 12:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak support I like the image but cropped too tight per Chris.
Spongie555 (
talk) 04:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Not Promoted --
SSTflyer 16:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Quorum not reached.
SSTflyer 16:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2016 at 23:02:13 (UTC)
Reason
High image quality, captures the size of humans relative to the massive flow rate of water on the pad, rare test, image is well composed. It has a free use license, per NASA policy.
Support but could you upload the original scan and link to it? I think it's an important part of documentation. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 15:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2016 at 03:54:55 (UTC)
Reason
High quality, good restoration (I uploaded several of the partially done restorations so people can see just how much gunk was on this picture). Image of Indriati Iskak at the peak of her acting career, before she married, went to university, and then started working for Unilever.
Comment It looks very good, but could you fix the light patches on her right (viewer left) arm, the two spots on her left (viewer right) hand, and the shadows on her skirt, leg, and shoes, which still show signs of damage, and maybe another quick pass over the left half of the background, and upload the original scan explicitly? Excellent image, but just a tiny bit more work could lift this up to incredible. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 15:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Think theleg went a little dark, so I did some fixes myself, going back to the one before the leg changed so much. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 23:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Alright. I added a few more touchups to the left background and the fence.
Crisco 1492 mobile (
talk) 00:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Oh, I haven't supported yet, have I? SupportAdam Cuerden(
talk) 10:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2016 at 22:21:51 (UTC)
Reason
It is an attractive and unique visualisation of a landmark at the first Wikimania away from a city, and taken at the recently concluded Wikimania 2016.
Oppose – the original image
[1] has stitching misalignments that carry to the "Tiny planet" projection. Great composition though. On the original see (x,y) = (4220,2050), (4220,2810), (7065,1825), (7320,1825), (7470,2400), (8970,1845) all relative to top left corner of the image.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Support - I like the creative way to play with the wide angle photo and make the small town as a symbol of the warming gathering of the global wikimedia movement. --
Liang (WMTW) (
talk) 06:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose - stitching errors, very noisy sky. --
Janke |
Talk 07:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose Per other –
Jobas (
talk) 14:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Support - effectively combines several themes in addtion to Tiny World/Stereography, the Cenotaph of the Major/First World War War Memorial, the Last Supper/Da Vinci , Wikimania 2016, Esino Lario, the 12 Stations of the Cross, the Via Crucius and Michele Vedani. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 18:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC).reply
Are all of those actually out of copyright? Adam Cuerden(
talk) 21:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose Aside from the technical issues I don't see what this picture adds to the EV that isn't already covered by the other FP tiny plant.
Spongie555 (
talk) 04:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak support Great concept, great composition, and topic ties in with a Wikimedia event. I disagree with above that the sky is too noisy, but the stitching error of the lamp-post is a valid concern.
Deryck C. 17:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Stitching errors are too blatant. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Chris. Far from FP quality.
SSTflyer 08:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment – Thank you, everyone, for your support and critiques. I'm afraid I wasn't able to fix the stitching errors due to handheld capture, so I hereby withdraw my nomination. – cmɢʟee⎆
τaʟκ 19:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
GamerPro64 21:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Question - Is there a higher resolution version available? —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 00:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)reply
I found two on YouTube that have higher resolution. One in
black and white but no title card. The other
color tinted. Don't know if the latter was color tinted in Segundo de Chomón's workshop or not.
GamerPro64 02:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support, with possibility for replacement if a higher quality video is found. The title card is necessary; I'd much rather have this version. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 04:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment There are some capitalization issues, it seems: the word envelope in "Nuclear Envelope", "cytokinesis" in the brown label and "chromosomes" in "Metaphase II Chromosomes" all should be decapitalized.
Brandmeistertalk 20:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Thanks, there's one capitalized "Cytokinesis" remaining in "Telophase I & Cytokinesis" (between Anaphase I and Prophase II).
Brandmeistertalk 07:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)reply
There is also "envelopebreaks" two words, "oppisite" misspelled, "divides" singular (under Anaphase II), "(Fragments)" doesn't need capitalization if used as a descriptor rather than a noun.
Bammesk (
talk) 13:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: Beautifully done, but still needs some work. Apart from the above mentioned,
I think the "microtubule" label should be dropped. Since microtubules are the constituent structures of the spindle, labelling both seems redundant and confusing when provided without explanatory text.
Could the shading be adjusted to make the attached sister chromatids more distinguishable?
The crossing-over isn't very clear. Take a look at the bottom tetrad in prophase I. I can't quite tell which arm is attached to which. Also, in metaphase I, the crossed-over arms appear unequal.
The aster shouldn't be shown as sun rays; they should have the same appearance as the spindle microtubules (but shorter).
The "Homologous chromosomes" label in prophase I should probably point to each of the pairs, the way "Sister chromatids" does in anaphase I.
Typo in the anaphase I description: should be "chromosomes", not "chrmosomes".
The description could also be clearer. How about "separate and move" instead of just "move"?
Probably not necessary to show the nuclear envelope forming in telophase I only to disintegrate again right away (though the illustration in Campbell's does)?
Don't think we should say the spindle forms "around" the chromosomes (prophase I). Just forms is probably enough, or if necessary, "in each daughter cell".
"Metaphase II" probably shouldn't be repeated in the description text.
Minor issue, but I wonder if the central dark area in the shading of the cells is necessary. It makes the cell look like a target, and it seems to emphasise something that isn't there.
It would also be nice to have an image of the late interphase at the beginning, to help the viewer get a picture of the "normal" stage before division, but that's just my opinion.
Since microtubule and spindle are not same, I thought using both of them would be better. The file is SVG so you can it can be zoomed without using quality, so by zooming, you can distinguish minor things like attached sister chromatids. The same fact is true for crossing over part. Although the asters don't used exact same color as spindle but I used orange yellow colors for both of them. I used yellow at the center because of the centriole pair. All misspellings are corrected. Homologous chromosomes label in prophase now point to each of the pairs. The diagram clearly shows that chromatids seperate during Anaphase II so I just used "move" to make text as short as it could be. The central dark area in the shading of the cells is because of the gradient that was given to make the cell more spherically and better. Interphase stage is not necessary to be shown at the beginning because meiosis contain several important stages and adding that stage would make the diagram longer and also Interphase is already depicted in
mitosis diagram .
Ali Zifan 19:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)reply
You think giving a timeframe/timescale would be possible?
Nergaal (
talk) 23:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)reply
If I wanted to create it, I would make it as a separate file.
Ali Zifan 21:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2016 at 23:21:45 (UTC)
Reason
She launched the Second Wave of Feminism, which is rather an acomplishment; also the photo's pretty good and has a lot of characer. Might want her facing the other way, but beggars can't be choosers, as they say.
Weak oppose - We absolutely should have a featured picture of Friedan - heck, I've cited her in RL numerous times. I'm afraid this just isn't it, however. Her looking away from the camera just takes too much away from the image for me, as does the tension between her forward-facing body and side-facing head. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 23:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Per
Chris. Also, heavy back-shadow is distracting.
Sca (
talk) 13:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment - Awesome picture, but the paper used as a background seems to have been quite dirty. It also seems a bit warm.
Archaeodontosaurus, could the background be cleaned up a bit? —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 02:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support I think you may have more than you realize here with this photo. If I am reading our article on
United States Navy Admirals correctly, this was probably one of the first nine United States Navy officers promoted to the rank of admiral in US history. If the other images are of equal quality, then perhaps an image set for FP promotion should be considered.
TomStar81 (
Talk) 08:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Admiral John Dahlgren - NARA - 528718 edit.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 12:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2016 at 19:18:18 (UTC)
Reason
It's a really impressively detailed image; Harris & Ewing would later become the largest photographic studio in the United States, and with pictures like this, it's not hard to see why. #10wikicommonsdays Day 3
Support - Pretty great photo for 1915. Also, how about that hat?
Kaldari (
talk) 04:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment There's some uncanny white glow from her dress, maybe the highlights can be toned down a bit.
Brandmeistertalk 13:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)reply
It is on the original too
[2] (scanned from a negative
[3]). Is the original burned to enhance lighting/contrast, or is it a lens effect, or ...? It is uncanny, although I do Support as is, given photo's age and EV (and the hat of course).
Bammesk (
talk) 13:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)reply
This is with me turning the highlights down a bit to bring out the detail. I think it's reflecting light a bit. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 13:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support, although I wonder why she died at the age of 38, as the article doesn't say that and my quick search failed.
Brandmeistertalk 17:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)reply
I've tried searching Tempo's archive; no luck. Kompas may have something, but their archive is offline, and the office is closed for Eid until at least next week. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 22:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support either as nominator, slightly prefer original – Adam Cuerden(
talk) 17:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support ↓ – Good capture of an interesting artist, with good detail for 1947. (Taken on 120 film?) Wish that mirror wasn't in the background, but oh well....
Sca (
talk) 21:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)reply
PS:
Adam, how 'bout a top crop that would at least get rid of the guy in the background and the distracting light fixture?
Sca (
talk) 21:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Sca: I didn't want to crop too much, so try this. Tried to just crop out the minimum to avoid distraction at the top, but then a little on the right needed to go. Then it felt too tight, so it went back in. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 23:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support Alt. 1 – Exactly what I had in mind (and tried out on my PC). Thanks, Adam.
Sca (
talk) 00:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support Alt. 1 - Less distracting. Good image. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 03:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support either – slightly prefer original, it shows more of the room.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC) on the Alt. 1 there is a speck at (x,y)=(1010,200) pixels relative to top left corner, and a very fine line from (104,0) to (70,1180)reply
Not anymore. I went over them again at 200% and removed any speck I could find. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 05:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support Alt1 this is a great portrait - it's well executed and very lively, and has lots of EV.
Nick-D (
talk) 08:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support Alt. 1 –
Jobas (
talk) 00:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose as the colour filter details don't appear to be explained. It has no audio, so it needs captions explaining them, and they're neither on the file description page nor in articles. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 02:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Yes, but it's not explained where it's used, nor on the file description page (and given the file description page is relatively hard to get to from a video as Wikipedia's currently set up, it needs to be both). At the moment, if one sees this in an article, they need to watch it, find the somewhat-hidden button to get to the file description, then from there go to the source page. And that's presuming NASA doesn't rearrange their site. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 04:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2016 at 23:58:57 (UTC)
Reason
Highly notable person, nice shot of her in action, as it were. Restored this mainly at 400%. Added a little headroom; it's kinda just at the requirement, but the film grain indicates that not much, if any, detail is lost because of that.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2016 at 06:19:34 (UTC)
Reason
Impressive picture of the largest single naval formation in history to take part in a battle. There are 11 carriers and 3 battleships, plus some other smaller ships doing a concerted maneuver shortly after Japan's surrender. Not gonna happen again. I think the imperfections are excusable considering the composition and subject matter.
Support as nominator –
Nergaal (
talk) 06:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now. In clear need of restoration, white border jutting in at the top left corner. Crop is awfully tight (though this can't be helped much) —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 11:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose – No doubt TF 38 was an impressive formation, but this aerial shot lacks detail and focus, the horizon appears to be tilted – and the war was over when it was taken, so it's not a war-action photo.
Sca (
talk) 14:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose Per other –
Jobas (
talk) 00:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2016 at 20:39:00 (UTC)
Reason
A very nice photo - a little luminous, but that's a 1910s photographic convention, I think - either you dump the people deep into shadow, or you make them glow. One of the two. #10wikicommonsdays Day 7
Weak support - Focus seems to be on the equipment behind her. Her hand is really out of focus. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 00:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Crisco 1492: I'm not sure the focus is that bad; it's a very big scan. Consider
this scaled down version - it's still well above the minimum requirements, but everything in the image looks sharp. Perfect focus distance, as would be seen at poster-size, probably was beyond 1910s camera technology, even if this is an incredible image overall. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 04:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Her hand is still out of focus, even scaled down. That's my main problem: her experiment (if that's what it is) is out of focus, and yet it's one of the most important parts of the photograph. The test tubes on the table are pin sharp, and though her face is a bit soft at this resolution I don't mind too much. It's the hand that gives me pause. (If this were a more modern picture, I'd have opposed). —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 04:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment White highlights and/or brightness could be adjusted here too, something
like this.
Brandmeistertalk 13:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment – (Not a vote!) – Seems kinda smudgy. Personally I prefer
this one, which leads the
Dürer article.
Sca (
talk) 14:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support Has great EV as a representation of the painting itself (which has an article). For an image of Durer, I agree that the Munchen self portrait is better. Unfortunately, the only high resolution version of that painting we have is somewhat noisy. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 00:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support Since such large files tend to slow my computer down, I reviewed this at a 3000px wide downsample, and would be happy to promote that, so the full-size passes for me. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 22:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak support – Appears to be a good scan by the Prado. Multiple uses on WP. But Charles IV seems a rather enigmatic and not particularly notable historical figure.
Sca (
talk) 14:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support High quality image. Notable as the painting has an article about it. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 00:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Very nice. Worth getting rid of the vignetting? —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 14:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Crisco 1492: It's very typical of the time, although it'd also be pretty easy to remove, as it's just two corners away from her. I'll remove it if consensus is to remove it. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 14:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support either – I kind of prefer the first image, the one with the vignetting, not because of the vignetting perse but for two different reasons: 1) I think with the vignetting, the eye is drawn more to her face and expression, and 2) for color balance. The black at the edges, especially the upper edges, picks up the black in her dress (that appears beneath her sweater). Without the vignetting, the background is nearly the same color as her outfit. However, I'm no expert in photography, so I defer to the image experts here. –
Corinne (
talk) 00:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2016 at 04:34:38 (UTC)
Reason
High quality image, especially considering it is from 1965. Historic photo of Gene Kranz working as flight director in flight control in his signature vest. Free license as it is from NASA. This is one of the most historic photos from NASA's mission control.
Comment - My only issue is that this isn't his signature vest - the article notes that his signature was a white vest, but the article has no photos of him wearing one, and two (including this) of him in dark vests.
TSP (
talk) 15:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Ah, fair enough. He wore the black vests during training sessions. His wife made him different vests for different occasions, and sometimes special ones for unique events. I think the vest itself is the important bit, I can change up my wording.
Kees08 (
talk) 15:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Actually, I think you're right and the article is wrong -
http://spacecenter.org/attractions/starship-gallery/gene-kranz-vest/ shows that his Apollo 17 vest was striped (admittedly with one of the colours being white), and
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4223/ch6.htm has him in a dark vest during the Gemini VIII re-entry. I think the 'signature' white vest was simply the one he was wearing at his most famous moment - during the Apollo 13 mission. So I think the image is fine and the article needs correcting.
TSP (
talk) 17:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Kees08,
Jobas,
Crisco 1492, and
TSP: I've added a cleanup. Mainly because of the bottom and left edges, and the fingerprint in the lower right corner, though I removed dust specks from throughout the image. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 21:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support but the date field needs to be fixed. There's no way that this image was taken in 2013. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 07:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)reply
...Ugh. UploadWizard strikes again. Fixed, since it was in the description, at least, presuming it was taken while she was there. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 07:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support. We need to feature more good photographs of notable women.--
Ipigott (
talk) 10:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support per Ipigott, and it's a great image. --
Rosiestep (
talk) 16:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Strike !vote as this account isn't old enough for that (was registered only 9 days ago instead of the required 25).
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 12:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Janke and
Crisco 1492: ...I don't get your votes at all. I have a friend who looks shockingly like her, and that looks to me like a perfectly relaxed, natural pose, as I often see on my friend. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 13:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)reply
For me, it's because she is looking one way while her body and head are turned another way. That and the fact that she may be squinting (can't find any other images of her for me to compare with). —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 14:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Struck as user isn't eligible to !vote. (was registered only 2 days ago instead of the required 25)
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 11:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2016 at 01:47:57 (UTC)
Reason
High quality image of the actress during the early period of her career. Was used on the cover of the
29 April 1959 edition of Varia. We also have
an image of this session, which is interesting.
Comment Can someone make the background clean? Old photos can't be allowed to bypass featured picture criteria. --
Rainbow Archer (
talk) 12:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)reply
As is clear in
the original source file, the background was not entirely plain. There was some texture. Removing what texture remains would misrepresent the subject. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 15:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support - Per nom, the number of red links on her page is an indication of how little info we have on Indonesian cinema.
Mattximus (
talk) 22:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Aminah Cendrakasih, c. 1959, by Tati Photo Studio.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 01:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support Though you may want to tweak the presentation a bit. The differing heights are awkward, and the front and back views, presumably to stop him shooting at himself, are reversed. A vertical presentation would be more natural, most likely. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 02:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Typical stock military
PR. Minimal EV. Zero human interest.
Sca (
talk) 00:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak support I agree with Chris' comments that it would be better if these images were a bit more alike, but they were well executed and have strong EV. I'm a bit mystified by Sca's comment: soldiers are required to wear standard uniforms and use standard sets of equipment equipment, and images clearly showing the full kit of a combat soldier have significant historic value. The Australian War Memorial, for instance, goes out of its way to ensure that it has photos and examples of full combat gear in its collection and these are predominantly displayed in a museum which is visited by hundreds of thousands of people per year.
Nick-D (
talk) 08:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)reply
We all know soldiers are required to wear uniforms. The point is, these are public-relations photos, not any sort of real-world event.
Sca (
talk) 13:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)reply
And you can identify every piece of kit worn by a British soldier in the 2010s without even looking at a photograph? Good on you! But for the rest of us, these posed shots show the uniform much better than a shot of a soldier (say) caught in a firefight.
Crisco 1492 mobile (
talk) 00:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but I find them boring. I don't think most readers are interested in every piece of kit worn by British soldiers in the 2010s. Nor do most of us expect to be required to identify them anytime soon.
Sca (
talk) 14:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
I find several subjects presented in these fora to be boring, but nonetheless I am able to push my own biases aside to recognize the value of various contributions. Wikipedia and its processes are bigger than any one editor, and as such we are supposed to focus on content quality in featured processes, rather than some abstract ideal of 'not boring to me'.
Crisco 1492 mobile (
talk) 02:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)reply
I find many of the featured artworks boring. Shall we delist those?
86.185.218.109 (
talk) 03:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support - But I agree with Adam and Chris.
Spongie555 (
talk) 01:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:British Army Soldier in Full Kit in Afghanistan MOD 45152581.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 20:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)reply Promoted File:British Army Soldier in Full Kit in Afghanistan MOD 45152579.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 20:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2016 at 00:38:31 (UTC)
Reason
Somewhat grainy, but that's fairly excusable - photography around 1900 is prone to that. Still, this IS a good image. The pose is very natural, and there's a reasonable amount of detail; her face is well represented. Plus the photographer is notable. Colour is reasonably accurate - the TIFF has colour bars, though I did darken up the blacks a little, to correct for fading.
Support – Interesting article & gallery.
Sca (
talk) 14:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment Please try to improve the quality. Though taken during bygone days of unrefined photography, we shouldn't show leniency. As
this picture was improved, this can also be cleared. --
Rainbow Archer (
talk) 12:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Rainbow Archer: I'm not sure you quite get hat's possible and impossible. The scratches and such have been fixed on this image, and the contrast upped. There's not much more that can be done; the remaining problems are graininess. Going back to the original negatives might help a bit, but Adolph de Meyer's original negatives are almost entirely lost, so that's probably not possible. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 16:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)reply
There are other problems also. As she is wearing hat, the shadow is covering her face's upper part. Her forehead is not visible and she is the subject here.
Rainbow Archer (
talk) 16:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)reply
While true, clothing does tell us something about her - her dramatic taste in clothing contrasts nicely with her calm facial expression. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 16:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Struck as user isn't eligible to !vote. (was registered only 2 days ago instead of the required 25)
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 11:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Struck as user isn't eligible to !vote. (was registered only 2 days ago instead of the required 25)
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 11:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2016 at 04:46:23 (UTC)
Reason
For most aircraft in service with their parent nation it is customary for the unit to denote the number of kills that the aircraft and pilot have racked up over the course of the plane's career. Here, the nose of an A-10A Thunderbolt II close air support aircraft shows off the stars painted on the aircraft to denote the number of Iraqi trucks, artillery pieces, tanks, armored vehicles and radar sites destroyed by the aircraft during the
1991 Gulf War.
Oppose I don't see any EV. It's not a good depiction of the A-10A Thunderbolt, and there is no mention of "kill counts" in the article, and there is no specific article for it. Interesting pic, but I'm not seeing how it links to the encyclopedia.
Mattximus (
talk) 23:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support - Considering the speed of film needed for athletic meets, I don't mind the grain here. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 05:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment – Right side of her head (left side of pic) is rather badly shadowed.
Understand re fast film & athletics, but this print is awfully grainy. Looks like it was taken on ASA 1000 film – too bad photog didn't switch to Tri-X for this shot.
Sca (
talk) 14:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Sca: If you'll look at the original, you'll see I've brought up the shadows a bit. You'll note her hair is at least somewhat distinct from the background here; that isn't true of the original. I'm not sure how much more I can do about the dark part of the photo. I think it's definitely an improvement, though. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 15:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
I guess I could go a little further. Updating... Adam Cuerden(
talk) 16:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Done, and Chris has been notified the nomination has changed. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 16:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak support – This does look better – and it's a nice capture of a moment.
Sca (
talk) 18:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment Her hair got mixed up with the black background.
Rainbow Archer (
talk) 16:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Rainbow Archer: I know. A good portion of my work on this was bringing it away from the background as much as possible without being misleading. I think I've done as much as I could in that line. If you didn't know, I always upload the originals.
This is the pre-restoration image. I think you'll agree I've pulled out a lot of shadow detail. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 18:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support Not perfect technically, but the excellent composition and strong EV of the moment the photo captures more than makes up for this.
Nick-D (
talk) 00:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support In my opinion, It's good enough.MITB ---
MITB_talk 09:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Struck as user isn't eligible to !vote. (was registered only 2 days ago instead of the required 25)
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 11:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support - Good EV, nice candid shot (and we don't get too many photographs from this era).
Kaldari (
talk) 03:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator – MITB ---
MITB_talk 19:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose - there must be better quality shots of this very notable person. --
Janke |
Talk 19:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)reply
I will search a better one.MITB ---
MITB_talk 19:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)reply
@ MITB: Please familiarize yourself with the FP criteria before nominating ineligible pictures (e.g. too small), thanks! --
Janke |
Talk 08:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I haven't noticed that.MITB ---
MITB_talk 19:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Can I suggest a third alternative? I want to suggest [
this picture]. It's suitable according to the FP criteria.MITB ---
MITB_talk 07:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Suggest closure None of the images here meet the
featured picture criteria, and it appears that the nomination is something of a fishing expedition. MITB, it would be good to have a FP of Churchill (or more if we already have some), but please take the time to consider the criteria and the quality of the image.
Nick-D (
talk) 08:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Okay, I will. Sorry for nominating unsuitable pictures.MITB ---
MITB_talk 14:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2016 at 23:15:17 (UTC)
Reason
A bit stylised, and black-and-white as an artistic choice, but the choices work well. I've levels adjusted this a little bit since it did seem a bit too dark and shadowed, but it's otherwise untweaked
Comment Great pose. Damn shame the photographer focused on her neck rather than her face (facial features are unsharp, necklace is sharp). —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 04:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Crisco 1492: Come to think of it, isn't that actually one of those things photographers do intentionally? Blur the face slightly to give smoother-looking skin? Adam Cuerden(
talk) 14:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Some. But there are much better alternatives than missing the focus. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 14:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)reply
I don't think any photographer does it by missing the focus (it makes the image look odd / out of focus). It is done by putting a filter in front of the lens, or using a special purpose lens, or these days in software.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support – Good EV. Striking resemblance to her father, esp. around the eyes. Agree re focus, but overall detail is acceptable.
Sca (
talk) 14:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Au contraire, I absolutely love politicians, all of them! – as long as they're not trying to slip official pics of themselves into the media as clandestine political advertising.
Sca (
talk) 14:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose – out of focus, not FP quality for a 2011 photograph. The camera-composition-lighting show this is a professional studio photo. The focus is on the far side of her head and farther back, not her face. I would be sympathetic if it was a historic photo or an action shot, but it is neither.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support Quality is good for 1925. Pose is acceptable (heck, I thought this was in the 1950s at first glance) - —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 04:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support Yeah, I think this picture worths it.MITB ---
MITB_talk 09:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Struck as user isn't eligible to !vote. (was registered only 2 days ago instead of the required 25)
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 11:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment I feel that the picture needs to be cropped, so that the focus is on her. --
Rainbow Archer (
talk) 11:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)reply
I think pictures of people at their job add a lot of value that cropping tends to remove. If we crop it to her, it would tend to de-emphasise that she was a NASA mathematician. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 11:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Katherine Johnson at NASA, in 1966.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 11:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)reply