Support - Another van Gogh I hadn't seen! Really nice. I like the lavender- or mauve-colored walls. Is that the ocean in the background?
CorinneSD (
talk) 23:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – Oh, Vincent!
Sca (
talk) 01:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support --
Yann (
talk) 12:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 May 2015 at 04:03:58 (UTC)
Reason
Great High Altitude Aerial Photo of the entire John Wayne Airport from 9000 feet. The entire airport area, and facilities, including the commercial and charter facilities are well illustrated.
Support Nice detail, clear enough to see the size of the planes etc, and enough of the surrounding land to be able to clearly see where this airport sits demographically... And of course my favourite detail is in this picture - a plane using the runway! Nice...
gazhiley 16:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment-- I'm just wondering what makes this stand out versus other photos of airports?
chsh (
talk) 16:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose thanks to the uploader for the useful and illustrative photo, however on my screen it appears as both a poor-quality image and also somewhat blurry. As Chsh asks, I'm also unclear as to what makes this image "distinct" or an example of WPs best work. A good photo, but not one of our best. --
Tom (LT) (
talk) 01:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Commentchsh &
Tom (LT) - while I cannot answer your comment on the quality, please do not view these in comparison with other pictures. The criteria for judging these are as a standalone picture - therefore do not judge them on whether or not they stand out against other photos. Each to be judged in their own merit. Thanks
gazhiley 12:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support -- Dreamland + HQ + EV
Alborzagros (
talk) 12:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support. Very dramatic, and lucky with the lighting. :-)
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 10:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Borderline for me, as per my previous objections to quality issues in dark photographs, however there is just enough detail (especially in the longer distance) to make me support...
gazhiley 16:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Love the landscape!
chsh (
talk) 16:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 May 2015 at 08:21:20 (UTC)
Reason
This is a set nomination of two striking and encyclopedic photos that provide side and dorsal views of Parantica aglea, also known as the Glassy Tiger butterfly.
Comment - Technically, this is pretty good. Admittedly it's a little soft, and I'd have used a lower f number to ensure that the pattern in the background didn't show up as much. However, the composition leaves a bit to be desired, as having his arms crossed (and cut off in the middle) and his eyes looking to the side doesn't make this stand out as a portrait. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 16:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose I don't believe anything really makes this picture significantly better than others of the actor.
chsh (
talk) 17:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Awesome painting with high quality. _______
Alborzagros (
talk) 07:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)_______reply
Support – Nineteenth-century hagiographic portrait with EV for Polish history. (When it was painted in 1781, Poland – territorially reduced by the
First Partition – had become a 'protectorate' of Russia, which soon would annex most of it.)
Sca (
talk) 12:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. Another incredibly boring dingy old painting.
81.152.230.173 (
talk) 19:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Another incredibly snarky and impossible to act upon comment. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 05:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Several other people recently have commented that certain photographic portraits were boring, or similar words. I didn't see anyone calling those comments "snarky".
86.152.160.53 (
talk) 12:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)reply
... by the way, in case you took the comment personally, which it seems you may have done, when I said "another", I did not mean "another nominated by you". I was talking generally. I did not even notice the nominator.
86.152.160.53 (
talk) 12:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Funny, I never said you meant it that way. There's a difference between "This painting is too dark" (which, yes, there have been several comments recently) and "This painting is incredibly boring, too old, and dingy (dirty)". The painting is old, of course (rather hard to paint the subject from life now!). It might not be the kind of thing that interests you, but then the criteria state "A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value." This painting has its own article, meaning the EV is clearly there. The painting is likewise not overly dark, as when you see it separately from the bright pure white (255, 255, 255) background, the detail is perfectly visible. This scan is well exposed; the
contrast effect makes it appear overly dark at thumbnail size. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 11:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support --
Yann (
talk) 07:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Jacques-Louis David - Equestrian portrait of Stanisław Kostka Potocki - Google Art Project.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 00:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Looks good to me!
Mattximus (
talk) 02:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support --
Yann (
talk) 20:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose Really grainy at full res...
gazhiley 16:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose agree with Gazhiley that sharpness is lacking. --Pine✉ 06:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Sharpness and grain are two different things. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 07:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Well composed photograph with good EV, although I wish the article was a little better there is sufficient information given in it.
SagaciousPhil -
Chat 12:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)reply
oppose neither are the typical crystalline structure are good visible nor the background is ok for me: too distracting. --
Alchemist-hp (
talk) 20:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose. In addition to reasoning above, the fact that the image is B&W doesn't help it's use in describing the physical properties.
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 10:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment The vignette on the bottom corners is unfortunately distracting
chsh (
talk) 13:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now; perspective needs to be corrected (doable with this file), pixelation or something is very disturbing, and there are way too many people (neither of which is fixable with this file). If you want to take FPs, I recommend investing in a camera (rather than a smart phone). —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 10:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose This probably is the best image of the India Gate
on Commons, but as Crisco says the technical standards and composition are well short of FP status.
Nick-D (
talk) 05:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose Personally I like all the people in this, as it adds a nice size comparison, and the way this is lined up with the further away tower dead centre looks good too... However, the quality just ruins it I'm afraid...
gazhiley 16:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support. Nice photo. The crop is a bit tight around the tail but actually I think it works in this case, because if JJ gave equal space in that corner, it would probably unbalance the (somewhat) central position of the body.
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 10:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Question this animal looks a little light compared to many of the photos that search engines pull up. Are we sure that this is the correct species? --Pine✉ 06:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - EV, sharp. (I am no species expert, but the shape is OK, I assume it is the lighting or age!)
Bammesk (
talk) 20:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - Very nice sharp, clear photograph; I'd say it has very good EV too (especially as
skink is something completely different in Scotland!).
SagaciousPhil -
Chat 12:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – excellent quality scan; good EV backed up by its use in a recently promoted FA on one of his paintings.
SagaciousPhil -
Chat 14:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose lots of marks all over the painting. The fault is with the condition of the painting, not the photo. The painting could use restoration work. --Pine✉ 07:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)reply
picture by Mathew Brady, restored, uploaded and nominated by
Yann
Support as nominator –
Yann (
talk) 20:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - Though I'd like it better if the water stains on his left side (viewer's right) were cut back. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Crisco 1492: Could you please add a note? Thanks,
Yann (
talk) 07:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Bottom right corner of the oval; rather hard to miss. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 11:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Crisco 1492: Done. I saw that, but I always wonder how much correction should be done. This is a daguerreotype, more than 150 years old... Any way, suggestions and critics welcome. Regards,
Yann (
talk) 20:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – Historical EV – an interesting and perhaps not very widely known (at least not to me) figure in U.S. history.
Sca (
talk) 12:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 May 2015 at 03:04:07 (UTC)
Reason
A high-res image of an important moment in history is shown here: the battle between the Monitor and the Merrimac (at the time operating under the designation CSS Virgina). This was the first time in history that ironclad warships (forerunners of the modern day battleship) ever fought each other, and the technological advances both ships brought to the battle single handedly rendered all existing military ships still using sails and/or wooden hulls obsolete. So unexpected were these technological advancements that neither ship could best the other, resulting in draw between the two ships.
Tried to correct spelling "Moniter" in page title above, using move, but found I didn't have permission.
Sca (
talk) 14:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Don't worry too much about it, I've personal declared my spelling to be god-awful, so this sort of spelling fubar is somewhat expected from me :)
TomStar81 (
Talk) 00:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Ah, you're OK – at least you can spell fubar (but, can you spell snafu?).
Sca (
talk) 13:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – I confess I don't understand the technical objection raised by
Crisco, but if that can be resolved – I like the painting & bleve it has EV (according to the article, parts of this technically significant battle did take place at very close range).
Sca (
talk) 13:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Ah! Well, aesthetically, I don't see any objection to removing the borders – which was done routinely done with a large series of
Adam's FPCs of turn-of-the-century German
warship postcards in the last year or so.
Sca (
talk) 13:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose: It really does matter: without the borders it's not reproduceable in the original form. It's not so bad when an optimised crop is done, and the original is available, or if the border has no information on it, but the L. Prang images have captions. Also, it still has a lot of damage, and - I believe - has been scaled down. That's a 210 megabyte original; I'd expect a bit bigger, even with the crop (I could be wrong there, though). Adam Cuerden(
talk) 14:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)reply
OK,
Adam, I defer to your technical knowledge & w/draw my support.
Sca (
talk) 14:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Adam Cuerden: I can all but guarantee that this is a scaled down image since the restrictions placed on image uploading would not permit the tiff version of the source page (which is the highest resolution available) to be uploaded here. Either of the two jpg/jpeg version could work, I suppose, but both of those versions do have damage issues that would make them unsuitable at the moment as FPC candidates. I would be of the mind to count this one for its color and slight restoration, although I had not realized at the time that the bord and crop problem would be a major let down for this image here. I'll have to be more careful about that in the future.
TomStar81 (
Talk) 20:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Actually, the originals CAN be uploaded, but you need to use the Upload Wizard, or install a gadget on Commons. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 21:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Right. The current maximum upload size is 1 gb. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment There's
wet season form as well, also a quality image at Commons, so might be better to nominate as a set.
Brandmeistertalk 14:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)reply
I considered that, but that image has the butterfly's head too close to the leaf. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 15:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 May 2015 at 14:28:24 (UTC)
Reason
Good quality scan of interesting painting; probably one of Rossetti's final serious pieces of artworks, it is unusual for this period of his work as it portrays the model full length and she is posed in an outside setting when he generally used a bedroom or drawing room.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 May 2015 at 22:09:52 (UTC)
Reason
High quality image of an important moument in Pakistan which is attractive and interesting. Good quality image on Commons and 7th position holder in Wiki Loves Monuments Pakistan
Support as nominator –
Saqib (
talk) 22:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support --
Yann (
talk) 08:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose As artistic as it might be, the dark arch cropping the main building spoils the EV for me - it distracts from the focus of the picture, and means you cannot see what is either side of the building... Looks nice, but doesn't meet what I understand to be the point of this process... Image size is only just within what's allowed so I feel a better picture that is larger and un-interupted by the arch would provide better EV...
gazhiley 12:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose A nice and good quality image illustrating an article. But not the best Wikipedia has to offer.
Alvesgaspar (
talk) 12:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Ms. Dingizian is no doubt an interesting person but I don't see the EV for a global English-speaking audience.
Sca (
talk) 13:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
Nergaal (
talk) 22:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - The video is used in what is essentially a gallery. Not too sure of the EV. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – Oh, my gosh. Can you imagine being in a spaceship, at the beginning of a journey to another planet or solar system, and seeing your home planet getting smaller and smaller as it recedes? Until that becomes a reality, and passengers take videos out the window, this is as close as we're going to get to that view. For that alone, I think it has EV.
CorinneSD (
talk) 00:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- As Crisco. Nice animation but not really exceptional as EV is concerned.
Alvesgaspar (
talk) 12:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support as I don't think we have anything better that's not a computer-generated animation. I've added this to the articles
Escape velocity and
Earth. I think the EV is highest for the
Escape velocity article. --Pine✉ 04:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now. The video does seem to add to the new articles, but perhaps this could be renominated in a month or so if it has stayed in them prominently?
Josh Milburn (
talk) 12:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - Wholeheartedly agree with @
CorinneSD. Years ago when WP:FP had a much smaller collection, every image was breathtaking. As the collection has grown significantly, the criteria of whether or not a picture "is among Wikipedia's best work" has fell by the wayside in favor of EV, resolution, and technique. This is unavoidable unfortunately, but, in this case, Leaving Earth really shines as one of Wikipedia's best works. I feel like the EV it's lacking is not a result of a poor image, but instead a result of articles not showcasing this image well enough. I hope people can see how wonderfully unique this image is and how it stands out among our set of pictures.
chsh (
talk) 16:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – Very clear image and nice painting. A portrait of one Danish painter by another Danish painter.
CorinneSD (
talk) 00:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – Excellent scan backed up by sufficient EV - apparently this portrait was described by an art historian as the "most beautiful painting of Denmark's Golden Age".
SagaciousPhil -
Chat 12:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
AntanO 05:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Again, DOF leaves much to be desired. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 06:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I like the idea of this picture, we have too few Featured Food pictures, but I have to agree with Crisco, the depth of field means half the image is very blurry. Perhaps a higher angle would help?
Mattximus (
talk) 14:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Two words:
focus stacking. This is the perfect example of something that would benefit from it. If
this ring had been photographed normally, I'd have lost focus on the rear. With focus stacking, everything is... well, in focus. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 15:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Do we need focus stacking for food photography? I see many pictures like this with
bit of shallow DoF. Anyway, it's a matter of personal opinion. --
AntanO 11:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)reply
If you're getting this little DOF with f/11, focus stacking would help immensely. Madhu Menon's goal is photographing images for display at web resolution and in menus, both of which are very forgiving of a lack of DOF owing to the small size. We're supposed to judge FPs based on the full resolution. These are very different beasts. Furthermore, working without a background means we don't have any pleasing blur/bokeh to worry about. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I agree, I think for educational use, good DoF is important, although I do have sympathy with AntonO because shallow DoF can be an artistic choice rather than an accidental problem. However, just as B&W photography is popular in part because of the sentimentality of days gone by when colour simply wasn't an option, shallow DoF macro photography is to some extent a popular aesthetic because of the traditional limits of the style rather than because people don't really want to see everything sharply. Just my opinion anyway. :-)
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 10:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
Yann (
talk) 08:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Extremely blurry; 1974 technical capabilities were enough so that that shouldn't happen. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Crisco 1492: Thanks for reviewing. There are many more pictures in
this set. I would be happy to import and restore another one if you think it would be better than this one. Regards,
Yann (
talk) 09:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
What's with the pink tint? I find it hard to judge DOF and contrast with it... or maybe it's my browser? —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 11:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Crisco 1492: No, there are all pink, but these are black and white pictures, so changing them to grayscale fixes the issue. Some trick is needed to get the highest resolution, which is not offered readily for download. If none of these are better, just forget it. I withdraw this nomination.
Yann (
talk) 16:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Request withdrawnYann (
talk) 16:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Support - What are the short white fiber-like things in the lower right section of the image? Can (should) they go away?--
Godot13 (
talk) 14:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I... haven't a clue. I'll remove them. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 14:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I may not be refreshing the image properly but they look like they're gone in the thumbnail but still there when I click on the image (?)--
Godot13 (
talk) 03:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)reply
You need to refresh the full sized image as well (CTRL + R in Windows/Firefox) —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 10:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – Cool composition.
Sca (
talk) 14:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support and looks like they want something to say.
Brandmeistertalk 21:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)reply
They're just listening to your our babble.
Sca (
talk) 13:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 May 2015 at 04:35:06 (UTC)
Reason
Highly detailed image of a noted astronomical object, 15,852 × 12,392 pixels in size. Previous nomination is at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pinwheel Galaxy which referred to a previous version of this image.
Support Beautiful and encyclopaedic. --
Ebertakis (
talk) 10:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - per last time & nice focus in head area.
Bammesk (
talk) 20:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - Great detail, nice EV--
Godot13 (
talk) 03:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – Good composition & color w/flower petals. (Could possibly be cropped a bit tighter to zero in more on central elements.)
Sca (
talk) 12:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support as per above.
chsh (
talk) 18:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Parantica aglea at Nayikayam Thattu.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 05:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose Blown sky, leaving a wierd blue edges all over upper half of structure. Distracting man at bottom right - seems quiet enough around the structure to get a better photograph with no people in shot. Plus although not technically part of it, the building in the background close to it being cut off is a shame, as it looks interesting. Only minor last point though, as obviously the nom is the structure itself.
gazhiley 11:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose and Speedy close - Nothing featureable in this nom. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 15:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment – EV? The Old Grammar Hall is mentioned once in
Magdalen College, Oxford – merely regarding its location within St. John's Quad.
Sca (
talk) 12:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 May 2015 at 23:09:05 (UTC)
Reason
High resolution video in a featured article. Interesting both for being an early example of animation and for combining animation and live action. Oh yeah, and dinosaurs. We all love dinosaurs.
Support - Iconic. One of the better prints I've seen, even though the video interlacing shows pretty strongly... --
Janke |
Talk 07:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Note—apparently Nathan and Crafton are involved in a
digital restoration of the film, including some lost frames. Whenever it happens to get released, it'll be way higher quality than this (taken from a DVD).
Curly Turkey¡gobble! 06:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Without a doubt, but "whenever it happens to be released" is a fairly uncertain thing to depend on. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 06:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator – Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 11:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose well under the minimum resolution. Are you sure this is the original resolution in which the photograph was taken?
Mattximus (
talk) 13:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose and Suggest Speedy Close as doesn't meet spec for nomination...
gazhiley 14:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Not Promoted Too far below the minimum threshold.-- —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 16:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 May 2015 at 21:33:28 (UTC)
Reason
Complete set prepared for the World's Columbian Exposition. Crane reportedly authored both the lithographs and the text, adequate resolution. This is a set nomination.
That's not what I was commenting on; there is no possible way to get such a pure colour in the borders without unwarranted digital manipulation. The borders are part of the illustration. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support I don't think the white border adds anything. Good reproductions. --
Yann (
talk) 16:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Oh, how I wanted to support. But I can't in good faith get behind a 4,000px long digitization of a painting that is almost 10 metres long. That's... what? Barely 2px per centimeter? —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 08:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Re: above: It still fits all the criteria...
chsh (
talk) 16:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Honestly, this reproduction is quite good.
Yann (
talk) 16:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)reply
... Except for the halftoning. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 04:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - Could this be made to work by simply making it smaller so that it won't be as blurry? At 5,278 × 7,322 pixels, it's larger than it need to be. -
Blorgy555 (
talk)
Conditional Supporton the basis that
National Names 2000 deals with
Crisco 1492's point above... per
Pine's edit... Excellent find, quality is brilliant...
gazhiley 13:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support I'm not
National Names 2000 but I have dealt with the caption. Very good image. --Pine✉ 05:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support --
Yann (
talk) 16:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - Excellent detail.--
Godot13 (
talk) 03:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support per my vote at Commons.
Daniel Case (
talk) 21:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:The Shard from the Sky Garden 2015.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 08:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 May 2015 at 11:22:49 (UTC)
Reason
This star atlas is probably less known than something like Uranometria, but still quite impressive, with comet paths charted as well. Very solid resolution, considering that each plate is about 48x49 cm.
Globi coelestis in tabulas planas redacti descriptio
Comment The article about him is quite short. And this is barely above the required size. I would support if this is fixed. Regards,
Yann (
talk) 20:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Which, the resolution (impossible to do) or the article (not part of the criteria)? We've promoted images of subjects with shorter articles before;
this one of
Ekaterina Skudina, for instance. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 00:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
Yann (
talk) 20:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Actually, I don't know who should be credited as Creator. The LoC says that F.W. Taylor claimed a copyright, but I doubt
he is the photographer of this picture.
Weak oppose - It has high EV, but the photograph itself (composition, pose, DOF) isn't very compelling to me. I realize that the art of portraiture hadn't been well developed in 1897, but it wasn't a completely new concept. Here are some examples of compelling portrait photographs from the same year:
1,
2,
3. I realize this is a very subjective opinion, so I'm marking it as 'weak'.
Kaldari (
talk) 19:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Kaldari: Personally, I find this portrait much more natural than the usual rigid pose. That also may be due to Tolstoy's personality. It is also notable that this is not taken in a studio with controlled light, but in the open with a natural light and environment, and that's quite rare for that period. I find it odd that you think this is a reason for opposing. Just my 2 Rs.
Yann (
talk) 18:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Yann: It does look natural, but almost snapshot natural. For someone like Tolstoy I feel like he should have a bit more gravitas in a portrait. I know this is completely subjective, so I'm willing to strike my vote if you think it isn't a valid objection.
Kaldari (
talk) 20:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Kaldari: Well Tolstoy was so much out of phase with his time that it is difficult to say if this was a "natural pose". He was critical of almost everything the society valued. To me, he looks a bit tense. I can imagine that he felt compelled to be photographed without being completely at ease. I hope I am clear. Obviously I would prefer that you support, but that's your choice. ;o)
Yann (
talk) 22:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I think if the lighting were better or the DOF more shallow it would make Tolstoy stand out more (and look more dramatic). As it is, the picture looks a bit flat, and the dark band across the bottom doesn't help matters. It's a good photo (and an excellent restoration), but I'm not sure it's one of our best images.
Kaldari (
talk) 01:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support: remarkable EV and I see gravitas.
Fylbecatuloustalk 21:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose/speedy close. Hi Qian- I'm not sure you're really clear on what we're looking; this image is very, very small, has no clear source, and isn't used in any articles. All of these things preclude FP status. If you're interested in nominating pictures here, you should take a look at the
the FP criteria, and perhaps take a look at some of the recently closed nominations to get an idea of what is expected.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 19:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - Image needs a US PD tag. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 03:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure how to do this. Could someone help me?— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Blorgy555 (
talk •
contribs) 00:27, 11 May 2015
Comment: I've added the appropriate PD-art tag, but I am unclear on the sourcing. I don't know any Korean, but
an attempt to search the linked website doesn't show this version.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 09:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I couldn't even open the website, myself. Just kept loading and loading. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 15:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose - We've had nominations of works by actual anime artists shot down. A user made image just doesn't have EV. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 09:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Speedy close - Just checked. This isn't even used. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 09:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
Yann (
talk) 21:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - I'd considered nominating this myself... at thumb it's very good, but something about the beard seems discordant at full size. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Could you please explain what you find "discordant"? Thanks,
Yann (
talk) 09:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I'd go with blurry - almost as if it was moving at the time... Almost what I'd expect to see from a 3D picture, if I wasn't wearing 3D glasses...
gazhiley 11:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
That's... a very, very good explanation. Yes, exactly what Gazhiley said. It's as if we're looking at 3D pictures without 3D glasses. I don't know how that effect occurs, but that's what it feels like when I look at the beard at full resolution. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 15:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Maybe it has to do with the drastic and very apparent shift in DOF, and how it interacts with the very fine details of his beard (the individual strands going from sharp, to blurry, to merging together...) —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 15:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Honestly, this looks a minor issue. It didn't notice this before. Does it prevent this picture for being FP, or could it be fixed? Regards,
Yann (
talk) 16:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Others may not care. I won't oppose over it... but I can't really support either. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately
Yann the focus of this voting process on locating and displaying Wikipedia's finest work means that yes, that sort of issue would/will probably prevent this achieving enough supports to become a Featured Picture... As regards fixing it, I would say from my (largely uneducated) knowledge of photo editing that this would not be something that could be adjusted - it's an issue created at time of the picture being taken...
gazhiley 15:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)reply
This image and
this one have the same problem, beard area has an offset ghost. I think the ghost is created by an image processing algorithm. Probably the jpeg algorithm. There are certain assumptions that go into these algorithms. HD televisions have similar issues, they cannot handle multiple quick light variations, it is visible in rock concerts at night when the on stage pyrotechnics or light show comes on.
Bammesk (
talk) 18:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak Support Due to the poor lighting (from the very cloudy sky) this picture seems really soft to me - borderline grainy... However it's just about clear enough to see details on the building, although not massively clearly...
gazhiley 11:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose As per above, I don't believe the picture is as aesthetically good as it could be. The clouds are awfully distracting and contribute to a dark lighting. The building itself isn't very sharp either.
chsh (
talk) 16:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator – Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 08:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Quality is as good as you can get - not like I could have a go at a sharper version! haha stunning look though...
gazhiley 12:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - Looks to be reasonably good quality. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 15:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Looks great -- I'm surprised we don't have a a FP of the sun like this yet.
chsh (
talk) 16:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Only just, as small halo present, and clarity could be better... But sharp enough to see enough details...
gazhiley 11:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose I agree with the below comments, and was only just supporting... Changed my vote...
gazhiley 14:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Blown highlights, crop is too tight (clipped antenna is evidence enough of that). —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 15:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak Oppose - I agree that the crop is too close. Along with the antenna, the reflection is also cut off.
chsh (
talk) 18:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 May 2015 at 21:45:46 (UTC)
Reason
High quality image, high EV, very rare.
Erfurt was occupied by Sweden from 1631 to 1648 during the Thirty Years War, thus the appearance of Queen Christina on their local currency.
Support as nominator –
Godot13 (
talk) 21:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - Very well done. I was going to comment on how some of the edges appear soft, but then I paid closer attention to the wear and tear on the coin. The image is sharp. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support- Looks like a nice picture.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 01:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support --
Yann (
talk) 17:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – Old & rare; good detail.
Sca (
talk) 13:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – As above. Godot13Regarding the use of the word "effigy" in the caption, are you sure that's the best word? Read the first paragraph in the article
Effigy. "Image" might be better. -
CorinneSD (
talk) 22:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)reply
CorinneSD I completely understand how it sounds strange, and I do think image sounds better, but it seems to be a term frequently used in numismatic writing to refer to the
portrait section on the front of a coin (even described as such within a Wikipedia
numismatic glossary)...--
Godot13 (
talk) 23:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Godot13 Thank you. I learned something new. That means that this is a specialized use of the word. Perhaps some information about this should be added the
Effigy article.
CorinneSD (
talk) 23:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Other featured images have black backgrounds, such as
File:Rembrandt, Self Portrait at the Age of 34.jpg and
File:Tiepolo Vercellae.jpg. If anything, there's a predominance of it; all of my MET uploads (which include the whole canvas, meaning they're not cropped to straight lines), for instance, have the MET's standard black background (though cropped very tightly, such that it may not be evident at thumbnail). I don't see a need to standardize, for two reasons. First, when we do the cut-out or color change ourselves, it's very easy to introduce inaccuracies (color fringing, etc.) and technical issues (overly jagged/sharp cutouts being my pet peeve). Second, different paintings will have different needs. A very bright painting would probably do poorly on a white background, and a very dark painting (An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump comes to mind) would probably do poorly on a black background. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 15:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support --
Yann (
talk) 17:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – very nice, excellent scan, very good EV. What a fascinating history the painting has.
SagaciousPhil -
Chat 09:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - I don't necessarily see a problem with there already being two featured images of Korean sculptures: In the sculpture category of featured pictures, I see at least four British sculptures, three from the past 100 years, two of which are by the same artist. Besides, this category seems too biased towards modern, Western sculpture. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Blorgy555 (
talk •
contribs) 13:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
The problem is not that there are already two pictures of Korean sculptures. The problem is that there are already two featured pictures which are used to illustrate exactly the same thing as what this image ostensibly is meant to do (i.e.
Korean Buddhist sculpture and
National Treasures of South Korea). This means that it has little EV (= Encyclopedic Value); the image of this statue adds very little that the others don't. If there were an article on the statue, I wouldn't be opposing, as we cannot illustrate such a subject with pictures of other statues. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 15:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Your points are noted. Still, I think that this has good EV because it was made over a century later in a completely different time period from the other two (they were made in the Three Kingdoms Period while this one was made in the
Unified Silla period), it is listed in a different portion of the
Korean Buddhist sculpture page, which is quite long, from the other two, it portrays a different Buddha (
Amitabha as opposed to
Maitreya), it is done in a completely different style (Seated Buddha as opposed to Pensive Bodhisattva), it is only 12 cm tall as opposed to the other two which are both close to 1 metre tall and it is gold, rather than bronze. Also, the
Korean Buddhist sculpture article does spend about half a paragraph on this sculpture.
Blorgy555 (
talk)
If there's enough referencing for half a paragraph, there's probably enough referencing for a whole article. Notability shouldn't be a big issue; it is a national treasure of Korea, after all. As I said earlier, if this statue had its own article (and thus its EV wasn't compromised by the existence of two other FPs), I wouldn't be opposing; I'd be supporting. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support --
Yann (
talk) 17:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose, there is no article for this statute, so there is limited EV.
Mattximus (
talk) 21:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - We've got a featured picture of this species already, at
File:Hoverfly December 2007-8.jpg. Not sure the EV's for this image, then is all the greatest. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose Nice photo, but agree with Crisco, we already have a featured picture of this species which is used in the infobox.
Mattximus (
talk) 21:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)reply
However they are in different pages.
Alvesgaspar (
talk) 21:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Doesn't change the EV; we could just as easily replace the nominated image with our current FP and the EV would be the same. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)reply
The concept of absolute (or abstract) EV doen'st exist in WP:FPC, that is a Commons concept. Pictures are evaluated for their EV inside specific articles. Moreover there are several instances of repeated species in our FP galleries, not only insects but other types of animals.
Alvesgaspar (
talk) 07:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
If we are to choose the best picture to illustrate the species it would be [
[1]], already a featured picture. If we were to find the best picture to describe the hoverfly family it would be [
[2]]. I'm not seeing which page this nomination would add any encyclopedic value. We already have both the species and family pages very well illustrated. Is it on another page perhaps?
Mattximus (
talk) 13:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment – Bee / insect and flower bloom – an archetypical composition that one
sees so often it's become – sorry – somewhat of a cliché.
Sca (
talk) 14:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
It is not the primary intention of this nomnation to show a beautiful composition and colors (as in Commons). The EV of this picture is given by the clear and detailed view of the insect and by the fact that the fly is feeding from a flower. Incidently, this is one of the few species with mouthpieces that enable them to feed from pollen (most feed from nectar)
Alvesgaspar (
talk) 14:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Ah! Well, I'm no entomologist, but I can see it has good detail at full res.
Questions: Why is episyrphus balteatus called the marmelade fly? – and why not stick the pic in
Episyrphus balteatus, too?
Comment Nice picture, but where's the EV? More a Commons-type photo, this... --
Janke |
Talk 12:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Apparently it's representative of a sizable region of Portugal.
Sca (
talk) 14:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
This is a kind of iconic view of the Portuguese region of Alentejo: a rugged wheat field (green or brownish depending on season) and rare cork oaks. Any Portuguese person will recognize it.
Alvesgaspar (
talk) 14:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
To clarify: My first thought was "this could be (almost) anywhere"... --
Janke |
Talk 14:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Perhaps, but a big sign saying "Alentejo" would be rather disturbing
. Seriously though, there is a little bit of discussion in the article about the topography of the area, which I checked before voting. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 14:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Yeah, the
Palouse of PNW, to which I compare it above, is similarly a very distinct & distinctive region, too – not just anywhere.
That of course means that this image could be used in the Palouse article, too...
--
Janke |
Talk 08:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support At first I thought it's near my home :-( so similar
Godhulii 1985 (
talk) 17:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. Although this is a nice "artistic" photo, the EV is questionable in my opinion. I get from it that there are fields and occasional trees in that part of Portugal, but not much about the overall appearance of the countryside. The comparison picture "Clouds over hills in Steptoe, Washington" is much more encyclopedically useful in that respect.
81.132.196.151 (
talk) 20:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator – --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec 02:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Unless the plumb-line used was wonky, then this picture isn't straight to my eye... Plus no offence, but there's no "wow" to this picture for me...
gazhiley 08:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Gazhiley: I've straightened it a bit. As for the "wow", if this doesn't have it, nothing I've ever taken does. Honestly, I don't even know what it really means (does it mean it was taken by a professional photographer at a globally famous site?). Looking at your supports on the FPC page gives me no clue as to the meaning. Isn't that second to EV and technical merit, anyway? --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec 12:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I can't really describe it
Jakob... It just seems a little dark to me, the colours aren't very vivid... A nicer weather day would bring out the colours better, but I suppose ultimately I just don't find power stations that interesting... However, now that you have straightened the picture, I will weak support as (other than my own particular opinion of "wow") it ticks all the boxes you have listed... Certainly the quality is there...
gazhiley 12:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I've added an alt with a bit more contrast, if anyone like that. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 14:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks
Crisco 1492, definate improvement - colours are much better... I will stick with my vote however(with a preference of ALT), as for me the subject really isn't one that would make me want to read about it, therefore no "wow"... Excellent picture, just unfortunate subject...
gazhiley 14:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose I don't believe this has the "wow."
chsh (
talk) 14:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak Support ALT - I'd prefer a sunny day and more clarity, but c'est la vie. Coupled with the resolution (just over minimum), for something this size, that puts me in "weak" territory. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 15:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support ALT --
Yann (
talk) 19:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – Very nice; just have to support after dreamily sitting here looking at it and wishing I was there ...
SagaciousPhil -
Chat 11:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:West end of Karang Bolong, Nusakembangan, Cilacap 2015-03-21.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 01:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 May 2015 at 04:37:43 (UTC)
Reason
We used to get tons of railway and train nominations, but we haven't in a while. So... here's a beautiful shot of the interior of the Köln Hauptbahnhof train station (with a train passing through!)
Oppose This is a pretty photo (of a not-terribly-attractive train station, albeit one with great views of the city's cathedral), but the blurred train detracts considerably from the EV. It would have been better to have taken the photo while the train was stopped or waited for it to have cleared the platform.
Nick-D (
talk) 11:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Considering primarily the potential EV of this image you are certainly right. From a purely photographic point of view, however, I disagree strongly. Without a dynamic element such as the train in motion, the station is rather boring imo. --
Martin Falbisoner (
talk) 14:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I certainly agree that the blur gives the photo of this fairly drab location some drama, and it deserves its FP status on Commons. The downside though is that it reduces EV for use in Wikipedia articles.
Nick-D (
talk) 11:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Blur, lack of visual focal point.
Sca (
talk) 14:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - How did you manage to get such an empty platform at 21:00 hour? About encyclopedic value, next time try with another picture of RE1 towards Aachen ;) It's timetable holds real EV, something oppose German-Engineering.
Godhulii 1985 (
talk) 17:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)reply
As for the empty platform at 9pm: I was lucky, I guess. And as for RE1: yep, indeed! ;-)) --
Martin Falbisoner (
talk) 21:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment – What is very recognizeable at this railway station is the Eau de Cologne sign, which is partially visible in the background of this photo. I think these neon letters should be clearly visible or could even be the focal point on a featured picture of the Köln Hbf. – Editør (
talk) 08:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Ah yes, echt Kölnisch Wasser. But speaking strictly for myself, I'd rather have Kölsch.
Sca (
talk) 01:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. I like the idea of the motion blur on the train in principle, but here it just looks odd, as if the whole train is a continuous uniform tube, without individual carriages, doors, windows, or any other features.
109.157.11.144 (
talk) 20:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Sca – A photo of an uninteresting empty space inside an interesting train station should not be featured. – Editør (
talk) 10:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Some of these editors are foolish. A train in a train station!? What low EV. Christ. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.72.189.147 (
talk) 05:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- The whole composition feels off-balance. But maybe that is just me.
HullIntegrity\
talk / 15:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Looks slightly tilted. I think the pyramid is small enough to constitute de minimis, but I may be wrong. If I am, there may be copyright issues. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 02:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Can anyone clarify the copyright issue? Tilt wise, what horizontals I can find seem ok to me
Crisco 1492gazhiley 09:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Try putting the square against a straight edge; it looks slightly titled CW. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 10:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I saw that, but given the perspective distortion that inevitably comes with a panorama like this, it isn't enough for me to have an issue with personally... Just...
gazhiley 11:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)reply
If this was taken exactly centered, I'd expect (at the very least) the far ends on both sides to line up. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 13:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator – looks great.
Bammesk (
talk) 17:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support A little bit of noise, but I don't mind... fountain looks good. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 02:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak Support Taken in the daylight, this picture would carry a lot more info, especially of the surrounding architecture that may compliment the stone work on the fountain. It's just about ok focus wise, so I'll weak support, but I really am not keen on this picture enough to full support...
gazhiley 09:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Fair point and definitely lots of great architecture around, on the other hand in a night picture the illuminated carvings and silky water stand out. The south side’s Bernini fountain was built later, so perhaps it is not as notable or original. For comparison we have
this image of it.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - I think there's a slight bit of motion blur, but not quite noticeable. Good image, good EV. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 02:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - nice, nest with eggs.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – Famous not only for his official roles, but also for his cynicism and variable allegiances. (Cartoon, lower right)
Sca (
talk) 15:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Good use in article (EV)-
Godot13 (
talk) 22:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – very nice and backed up by a reasonable article on the subject of the painting so provides very good EV.
SagaciousPhil -
Chat 16:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Famous person. --
PetarM (
talk) 14:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord - Pierre-Paul Prud'hon.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 02:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Nice... And added bonus of the chrome bumper being so shiny you can see the photographer!
gazhiley 08:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - Perhaps not as ritzy as many of our other car FPs, but it's perfectly encyclopedic and well composed. And yes, the photographer is (barely) visible in the bumper. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 10:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose and agree speedy close - also fixed your link as you were linking to this nom instead of the prev
Chris Woodrich...
gazhiley 09:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment – Normally the year (Baujahr) of the car would be included. Since the 507 was built in the late '50s, confusing that it's pictured at a 2009 car show. Also, detail (focus) doesn't seem quite what one would expect from this large a file.
Sca (
talk) 15:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - Strikes me as perhaps a tad oversharpened. This is particularly evident at the top of the windshield. Also, I agree with Sca; we should have the year of the model too. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk) 23:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I didn't find the year of production but it was being manufactured from 1956 to 1959. I thing it is no big deal the exact year.
Alborzagros (
talk) 05:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm not a car person, but I do know that there are occasionally significant changes to models between different years. This isn't like we're asking for an exact year for a five-hundred year old painting. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 05:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Let's take a look at here
[3]. It reveals the year of car that is 1957. What's your idea about here
[4]? 1959 is shown but the shape and appearance of both cars are the same. -----
Alborzagros (
talk) 07:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)-----reply
Those photos
[5],
[6] and
[7] claim that car is from 1959, don't they?
Alborzagros (
talk) 08:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Crisco here. We could try asking the photographer.
36.73.111.104 (
talk) 10:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support I am a bit of a car person, it is not necessary that models change every year. Most of the high end automobiles undergo only performance/components upgrades throughout their lifetime, not a major facelift or an exterior redesign. The
article says that there was a Series I and II. That should be cleared up, though both of them would be indistinguishable from the outside. --
Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 02:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I'd probably support if we had at least that much. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 07:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 May 2015 at 23:34:57 (UTC)
Reason
I'll be honest, I squeed when I saw this pop up on my watchlist. Lubis is one of my favourite Indonesian authors (his diction is influenced by his career in journalism, making it easy to read, and Tiger! is a masterpiece study of sin, superstition, and guilt). The image is darn good too, especially now that I've fly-specked it a bit.
Support - Aside from the clear EV, the fact that you squeed is also a strong factor ;-) --
Godot13 (
talk) 05:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support EV. Great portrait. --
Yann (
talk) 11:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: Could you give a quick explanation of the copyright status of this image?
Josh Milburn (
talk) 19:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)reply
CC-BY-SA. See the source, right sidebar."Auteursrechthebbende: Nationaal Archief: CC-by-sa" and
Commons:Nationaal Archief. It's similar to our
Abdul Haris Nasution FP. I've updated the template; we've got one specifically for the NA. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 23:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support I might be inclined to tweak the black balance slightly, but it's very good. Adam Cuerden(
talk) 11:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose - Technically, it's better than the last temple nomination you made. However, the perspective should be corrected, which is a problem since the crop is too tight for us to do that and keep the whole temple in frame. Also, some of the highlights are blown. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 05:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak Support Blown highlights prevent me giving full support, but the detail is there sufficiently for me, if a tad soft... Certainly quite an interesting looking building...
gazhiley 10:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 May 2015 at 10:30:05 (UTC)
Reason
A short film released by the United Kingdom highlighting the Berlin Airlift and the role of the
Royal Air Force in assisting the USAF in helping to ensure that West Berlin remained supplied during the first overtly unfriendly act of the Cold War. A unique find for both the footage and for highlighting the role of the RAF in the operation as opposed to sticking solely with the US as the saving force.
Clarification: Support either version.
TomStar81 (
Talk) 04:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - I suspect that a higher resolution version is available at the source. Archive.org has a 600mb MPG file; will download to check. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 15:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment – Alas, I don't see much added EV in this officially produced film – which takes rather a Britain-centric viewpoint. (See tonnages delivered
here.)Sca (
talk) 16:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)reply
That is the point. When was the last time you heard about the RAF in the Berlin Airlift? If you're from the US like me, that fact is rather conveniently overlooked.
TomStar81 (
Talk) 04:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I was aware of British participation, but admittedly not its extent. I'd feel more comfortable, though, if this weren't so all-British, which could mislead younger viewers. (See vote below.)
Sca (
talk) 14:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Alt. – Upon reconsideration I'll support higher-res version, mainly for EV re less-known period British aircraft – such as the
Avro York – which as a WWII-etc. history buff I find interesting. Presentation should be prefaced with context re the larger operation.
PS: Wonder what
Bomber Harris thought of the Berlin Airlift.
Comment. I would so much prefer to see these product photos incorporating a plain but visible background. 17:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.132.196.151 (
talk)
Support Not a pretty picture, but it's all the EV can ask for.
Mattximus (
talk) 23:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - per Mattximus.--
Godot13 (
talk) 07:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 May 2015 at 23:36:54 (UTC)
Reason
Since we've had a string of Korean nominations recently, I figured I might as well take part. This is a high quality scan of a 14th-century Korean scroll, showing several of the key characteristics of the
BodhisattvaKsitigarbha
Support Quite interesting (and still dreaming of opportunity to visit Seoul...)
Brandmeistertalk 13:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – Good quality, interesting work.
Yann (
talk) 20:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - An exceptional piece that's been very well preserved -
Blorgy555 — Preceding
undated comment added 04:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – interesting - a bit different from what I usually go for but the quality and the EV are all there.
SagaciousPhil -
Chat 11:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - per above.
Bammesk (
talk) 23:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Goryeo-Kshitigarbha (Chijang)-late.14c.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 00:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 May 2015 at 23:42:34 (UTC)
Reason
Good quality photo of a notable person. Besides his military career, Mundy served as president of the non-profit
United Service Organizations Inc., commonly known as USO.
Comment - There's no freedom of panorama in South Korea, and this is recent enough to have a copyright still attached. I'll check to see if the OTRS ticket covers both the statue and the image, or... If this is free, it's definitely got my support. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 01:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
Zeete (
talk) 11:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - I was just planning on nominating this. Good scan, good work. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 13:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – Iconic.
Sca (
talk) 13:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support as above, very nice scan and article is more than a stub so EV is there.
Mattximus (
talk) 23:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – very nice scan with an interesting little article to back it up. He died at 8 years old? And he had a magpie as a pet? Just has to make you go "Poor little lad ...".
SagaciousPhil -
Chat 10:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Don Manuel Osorio Manrique de Zúñiga.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 11:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – The DOF is a little tight (the back foot is out-of-focus), but that doesn't spoil the image. I like the drops of water on the bird's back and tail. —
Bruce1eetalk 12:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Given the amount of light available (which may reflect the bird's habitat), I think the aperture chosen was the best choice.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 23:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - Wow, this is a good one. I don't mind the DOF being a bit tight in this case.
Mattximus (
talk) 23:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - These little buggers are not easy to get this well!--
Mark Miller (
talk) 00:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - Per above, and excellent detail.--
Godot13 (
talk) 05:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Myioborus torquatus Santa Elena.JPG --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 23:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2015 at 07:13:08 (UTC)
Reason
High quality image, high EV, rare in this condition. Struck during the last three months of 1689, Alexander VIII was only
Pope for roughly 15 months until his death in 1691.
Support as nominator –
Godot13 (
talk) 07:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - Brilliant photograph of the coin. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 07:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – Amazingly preserved if this was actually minted in 1689. EV for
Papal States.
Sca (
talk) 15:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support – Excellent image; more than enough EV provided by the articles although both could do with a little TLC ...
SagaciousPhil -
Chat 10:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)reply