Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2019 at 15:00:34 (UTC)
Reason
Surprisingly, this is the only video we have of this behavior in primates and one of only three videos we have showing
social grooming behavior in any animals. This was promoted
at commons a few days ago.
Comment –
FP criteria says images should be a "minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height". This is only 1181 pixels. I would support the
infobox image if a 1500+ pixel version of it can be found.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Resized - truly sorry. I know I can't change half-way of the nomination the picture. I thought it was the best. --
LLcentury (
talk) 11:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Did you upsample the image or download a new version from the source?
MER-C 14:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)reply
MER-C - I resized the same picture which was uploaded previously. --
LLcentury (
talk) 14:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)reply
That's upsampling, a practice that is strongly frowned upon at FPC. You should revert your changes - (1) per
c:COM:OVERWRITE and (2) the information "added" by the upsampling algorithm is
literally made up and can be anything. Upsampling does not address the lack of
physical resolution (i.e. information per steradian, see also
Angular resolution) in the original image. Speedy close.
MER-C 14:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Nomination was withdrawn, see
[1].
MER-C 17:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Nomination withdrawn MER-C 17:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2019 at 20:32:58 (UTC)
Reason
It's a quirky, but engaging composition, full of some nice symbolism. Has to be CSS cropped in her article a bit, but that's more to do with Wikipedia's layouts and not having another photo of her, so it needs to do double duty.
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.1% of all
FPs 20:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support – @
Adam Cuerden: there are three spots under her right eye and one spot above her left eye which I feel are imperfections in the photo. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 12:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support – I agree with Coffee about those spots.
Bammesk (
talk) 15:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Coffeeandcrumbs,
MER-C, and
Bammesk: I fixed the spots, and spent a few extra minutes zoomed in and despeckling her whole body, since that's the most important part of the image. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.2% of all
FPs 18:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support I started the
Henrietta Rodman article several years ago. She was an unusual person, and expressed ideas through her clothing, among other ways; having a good quality picture of her dress and boots and determined face and body language adds to the clarity of the article.
Penny Richards (
talk) 20:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Henrietta Rodman from the George Grantham Bain Collection.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 22:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2019 at 08:13:45 (UTC)
Reason
There's a few good pictures of him on Gallica, but I've always preferred an "action" shot, where available. It's not perfect - The original was a bit overexposed, and while I could bring it down a bit, it's very contrasty between the pure white equipment and coat, and dark background.
Support. Good environmental portrait, high EV. There's still detail in the lights and darks, so I don't mind the high contrast. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 06:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: I really like the image, but could we have a clear explanation of the copyright status?
Josh Milburn (
talk) 21:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)reply
The BnF says it's Public Domain; I believe this is because it was only ever credited to Agence Rol, hence it's basically an anonymous work. I should probably tweak the copyright tag. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.2% of all
FPs 01:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support. --
Gnosis (
talk) 04:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Professeur Metchnikoff, portrait du scientifique dans un laboratoire de recherche.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 12:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
MER-C 15:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support – EV, vulnerable to extinction, high resolution.
Bammesk (
talk) 18:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support I'm not completely sure about these head shots in general, but there's probably more interesting and unusual detail here than in most since giraffes, by their nature, don't tend to have a lot of head detail in a picture that includes the whole body, so their head is rarely clearly seen. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.2% of all
FPs 01:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2019 at 08:35:40 (UTC)
Reason
Good EV as the infobox photo of
Vanda garayi and
Raceme, high resolution, meets moderate to good technical standards. Regarding digital manipulation (isolation on a black background) I feel it is consistent with best practices in botanical illustration and photography where the subject is often isolated for the purpose of clarity.
Support as nominator –
Theleot (
talk) 08:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Did you take the image against a black background, at night, or did you add it in in post-processing? We prefer natural
bokeh.
MER-C 18:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I took the photo during the day with black cardstock as the backdrop as many other orchid species were nearby (potentially confusing), but the cardstock didn't fill the frame entirely and distracting elements were visible behind it. I
burned away the paper texture behind the orchid and extended the black to encompass the whole background.
Theleot (
talk) 23:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Sorry, but the background manipulation gives the whole composition an artificial look. –
Sca (
talk) 12:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Sca.
Geoffroi 19:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support either as nominator – ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 09:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose - harsh lighting. The infobox image is better in this regard.
MER-C 10:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak support alternative. I would, of course, prefer an image that has the composition of the first but the lighting of the second.
MER-C 14:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak Support I think that a levels adjustment is called for. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.2% of all
FPs 02:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)reply
@
MER-C and
Adam Cuerden: Added alternate we can replace on the article. A head-on photo, as close to the palace as the alternate, is not possible because the area between the fountain and the palace is restricted. Both of these photos are FP at Commons and I don't want to mess with the levels on the original. The original is a panorama that has been stitched together. When I tried adjusting the levels, the right side turned out much darker than the left. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 07:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support – prefer Alternate, it can replace the infobox image.
Bammesk (
talk) 15:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Alt looks a little tilted. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.2% of all
FPs 18:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)reply
There is no tilt in the bottom horizontal lines of the building. The top horizontal lines have a slight tilt because the camera isn't positioned in the front center of the building. That kind of tilt is evident in real life too (expected), if one stood there, so I don't think it's a significant drawback, it is a natural phenomena given the camera position. Another way of saying it is: the left side of the building is closer to the camera, the right ride of the building is farther from the camera, so the left side of the building should appear larger than the right side, and it does.
Bammesk (
talk) 19:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)reply
True. I guess I can Weak support either, which you may combine with MER-C's to get a full support. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.2% of all
FPs 08:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator – ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 09:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support. Being part of a World Heritage Site gives it enough EV despite the secondary level of this photo within its article. A nice formally framed view of a subject for which that treatment is appropriate. Some of the area surrounding the window has dropped off into total blackness but I think that's only a minor flaw. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 18:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)reply
From the discussion you linked to, it sounds like the over-processed appearance is due to lightening the shadows while darkening the sky (which is superficially similar to the effect you would get with HRD). According to the featured image criteria "Typical acceptable manipulation includes cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulation should be clearly described in the image text." Selective lightening and darkening (especially to the point where it looks unnatural) seems like it would qualify as "more extensive manipulation". The unmanipulated original image would be more appropriate for Wikipedia (if the photographer was willing to provide it).
Kaldari (
talk) 20:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Kaldari: What exactly do you mean by "unmanipulated original"? The raw file? Afaik there is no way to upload raws to commons. And to get a view from the RAW-data one needs some kind of development anyway. And all I did to develop this photo was an overall enhancement of the gradation. So basicly the same thing almost every a bit more experience photographer does in Lightroom with almost anny image - not even talking about smartphones and consumer cameras, that have this kind of image processinge already built in. Anyhow: The atmosphere of this image comes quite close to what a saw there with my own eyes that day (
Here is a view from the opposite direction). And the fact that cameras nowadays are able to handle a dynamic range that comes closer to the one of out eyes, imo makes a shot more realistic than less. //
Martin Kraft (
talk) 16:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm sure you know what I mean by "unmanipulated original". I agree that enhancing photographs is commonplace and generally desirable. Wikipedia, however, prefers purely documentary photographs over beautiful photographs (unlike Commons). My issue with the photo is that the scenery appears brightly lit, as if on a sunny cloudless day, while the sky appears full of heavy clouds (that somehow don't have any shadows). To my eye, it looks unreal. The composition is superb, however, and I would gladly support featuring a less manipulated version. I hope that sounds reasonable.
Kaldari (
talk) 16:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
No sorry, I really do not know, what
you mean by "unmanipulated original". Because something like "the original" does not exist in digital photography, since every step that goes beyond the raw elektronic information coming from the chip already is a manipulation of this data. And that is not limeted to the things a photograprapher can do in post processing but also includes the things the camera itself is doing to generate a preview version from the very same data. As you might know a professional cameras support a lot of parameters, that define how this preview is developed from the raw. Consumer cameras also include this development process, usually one can only use presets. The idea that there is such a thing as a digital original is therefore an illusion. This aside, I doupt that the image would be any better from an encyclopedic point of view, if the dynamic range of the image would be so limited, that the sky burns out to white while the frame is solid black. Please do not confuse the limited dynamic range we are used to by older cameras, with what was really visible there to the clear eye. Standing on the window, I did not neither see black underexposed areas nor a burned out sky, but the clouds as well as the paint on the frame. One last comment about the weather: There are a lot of weather conditions between gloomy cloudy and crystal clear sky. And about the best weather condition ist the one yout see here: A lot of moving clouds of different opacity, that deliver as sunny ligthing without hard shadows. Of course yout are free to stick to you're judgement, but please note, that there is no absolute right or wrong when it comes to the color grading of a photograph. //
Martin Kraft (
talk) 17:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I didn't say unprocessed original, I said unmanipulated original (I'm familiar with using RAW files). And I generally have no problem with digital manipulation, as long as it still looks realistic. I realize that this is a subjective judgement and prone to error, but that's still my judgement. It also looks like someone in
the Commons discussion had the same concerns, although I don't now why anyone on Commons would care.
Kaldari (
talk) 18:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2019 at 08:45:21 (UTC)
Reason
He's an interesting fellow. French art critic, rediscovered Vermeer. I think what really attracted me, though, was the difference between what I could do for his image and the low-quality, rather oddly-cropped scan that was there. Stumbled on it while looking for a good image for Nadar - I found a really good one, but he has a beard in it, and that's not the most common one portrayed, so I need to think.
Anyway, this is another of his son's enlargements of his father's negatives. Some film and paper grain, but, on the whole, I think it's pretty good.
Support, prefer alt.
MER-C 15:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose A bit too gruesome.
Poydoo (
talk) 21:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Poydoo, there's no such criterion. In fact, the
criteria says that "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all".
Tomer T (
talk) 12:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I guess I should read the rules more closely.
Poydoo (
talk) 14:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support alt with a side of ughAdam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.3% of all
FPs 10:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Changed to alt-only, because... galleries. Needs more prominence. The more prominent usage in
Swarm behaviour pushes the alt over the top. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.3% of all
FPs 10:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose alt due to the shaky camerawork. Neutral on the original, since it's only used in a gallery. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 17:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support alt – Added to
Swarm behaviour#Ants where it has very good EV. The shaky video is unfortunate but the EV is enough for me to overlook that. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 07:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support either one.
Geoffroi 19:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Red weaver ants transporting a dead gecko, in Laos (video).webm --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 21:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2019 at 15:50:24 (UTC)
Reason
There is an existing FP
File:Red Wattlebird Anthochaera carunculata.jpg for this subject which was removed
seven years ago. This image is used in the infobox - and rightly so, because it has better resolution and bokeh. (The existing FP will be nominated for delisting if this is successful.)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2019 at 18:11:29 (UTC)
Reason
Testing waters a bit with this one. It's a handheld shot, but of good enough quality, I think, of one of the most famous Buddha images in Thailand. The nominated picture shows a bit more of the architecture than Alt1 (though it still doesn't include the ceiling, as it's presumably quite impossible to get a wider angle shot with the constant crowds). This was inspired by the Eldridge Street Synagogue nom.
Support as nominator –
Editor-1 (
talk) 16:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Official govt. photo, primarily for promotional purposes. Scant EV. Blah. –
Sca (
talk) 12:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support While I largely agree with Sca, this is as least better than most of that type. Will need to be carefulwhen we frontpafe her, though, as we do not want to g et into political promotion territory, so if it does pass, I'd say get it out soon. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.3% of all
FPs 16:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Further re scant EV, the under secretary of Energy for nuclear security is a minor and politically obscure post. Few have ever heard of it. –
Sca (
talk) 12:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose I don't think that the FP criteria are met: while this photo is useful and fairly well executed, it's a stock-standard US government official headshot with no outstanding features.
Nick-D (
talk) 21:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2019 at 15:54:03 (UTC)
Reason
Was just seen on Commons FPC, where it was featured unanimously. Excellent EV too, it replaced
File:Morus bassanus 30.jpg in the article. Is that bird carrying plastic in the replaced image?
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2019 at 14:57:47 (UTC)
Reason
I've been going through and selectively uploading images from the official US DOD website, and to be totally honest, I just really like this image. For context, company runs suuck and officer candidate school suuucks. The entire process is designed to beat you down and make you quit. You can see the suck on her face, the dirt and sweat, but she is still entirely composed, perfectly at the position of attention, and you can see exactly the indifferent endurance that this type of training is supposed to instill. The lighting is great. The composition is great. The guy standing at attention on the right, a head taller than her. The guy on the left casually looking off to the side, which he isn't supposed to be doing while the entire formation stands at the position of attention (chest out, arms down, eyes forward). Her whole demeanor just screams military discipline. The picture just perfectly illustrates exactly the surreal exhaustion you feel at that moment, chest out, arms down, eyes forward, knee deep in suck, but the suck be damned.
Oppose - great composition, but heavily compressed and suffering from JPEG artifacting.
MER-C 11:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I have written to DVIDS/Marine Corps Recruiting Command to see if it is possible to get a copy of the uncompressed original.
GMGtalk 21:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
@
MER-C: I tthink (?) I've now gotten the uncompressed original.
GMGtalk 17:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
That's noisier than I anticipated... and possibly unnecessarily so, as the photo could have been shot at ISO 500 and 1/200 shutter speed compared to ISO 1000 (where the noise comes from) and 1/400. I've withdrawn my oppose, but would like to see a noise reduction performed on the background to support.
MER-C 17:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I uploaded a denoised version. Support.
Bammesk (
talk) 14:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC) . . . P.S. I uploaded it on top, I don't think it's a controversial edit.reply
Hey thanks for looking into it @
Bammesk:. I've been fiddling with it for the past day or so trying to figure out how to do it correctly.
GMGtalk 15:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Gaussian blur in
GIMP, very little on the face and chest, more so elsewhere, feathered selections for smooth transitions.
Bammesk (
talk) 15:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I've been backing-and-forthing on this. A compelling portrait, but this feels a little too much like propaganda to me. The EV isn't really obvious, either.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 07:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Well, at least my own reasoning was that we have few high quality images of women in the Corps. Looking at related topics, without adding the image myself wrt POINT,
Officer candidate school has not a single woman to be found.
Officer Candidates School (United States Marine Corps) has only a single image copied from the last article, all men. The main article for
United States Marine Corps, has four images for women (
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5]), one of which is historical, and the others are just pretty crap.
GMGtalk 13:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – the photo is fine, thanks to Charles, but the article is too short, just a sentence, also
the male photo is a FP, not sure the short article supports two FPs.
Bammesk (
talk) 04:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
It does - the images convey different information. The article length is not a problem in this case, and it is now fairly routine to have two images in the taxobox for both genders.
MER-C 13:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2019 at 17:44:41 (UTC)
Reason
I'm testing it and giving it a try, I've removed (along with fellow
User:Hohum) as much as
film grain as possible, but couldn't do more. It's up to you and I profusely respect your position.
Support as nominator –
E.3 (
talk) 16:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose – As far as I know, we don't feature fan art unless it's specifically discussed in the article with sources, so I've removed it from Game of Thrones and
Daenerys Targaryen.—
TAnthonyTalk 16:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)reply
This nomination was never transcluded to
WP:FPC. Resetting clock.
MER-C 17:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy close - not used in any articles. I chose to list the nomination, because it needs additional eyes regarding whether the image is a copyvio.
MER-C 17:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Regardless of the copyright issue, I don't see how this is of FA quality and relevance. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 17:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose per MER-C and David.
Geoffroi 02:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm not against the idea, but the crop is weird. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.3% of all
FPs 12:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Never saw a woman with a neck like that either...
Geoffroi 22:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2019 at 17:44:05 (UTC)
Reason
Adds greatly to its respective article and has cultural significance being the UK's best selling beer - playing a large part in the country's pub culture
Nice bokeh, but the noise from shooting at ISO 1600 (needed for such a wide aperture) masks some of the detail. Haven't made my mind up yet.
MER-C 11:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose – texture-like artifacts on the bokeh on the lower third of the image (perhaps noise related!?).
Bammesk (
talk) 03:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Fixed - sharpening tool went a bit wonky on the background.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 20:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Good, much better. I agree with MER-C, it is noisy and the noise shows in some areas, for example the underbelly. Good composition though. Weak support because of noise.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak support - resolution goes some way towards compensating for noise.
MER-C 13:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. Nice at small image sizes but I don't like the bokeh on the mother's pouch, haunch, and underside. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 05:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Is it just me, or is there some weird blockiness around the parrot's eye?
MER-C 11:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Probably just a reflection of the enclosure in which this photo was taken, and/or lighting equipment for the shot. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 07:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2019 at 17:43:18 (UTC)
Reason
High quality image of a species that isn't so easy to photograph. The slight orange hue of the sky was present on the day because a small squall had just passed over.
Support. --
Gnosis (
talk) 15:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment. Beautiful and high ev, but it's a little soft at full resolution and has some visible chromatic aberration especially towards the right side. There's not much to do about softness but the aberration might be fixable. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 00:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment. thanks @David_Eppstein. you're right. I fixed chromatic aberration. --
Amirpashaei (
talk) 07:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Nice image, though I find it a little dark. A suggestion: the image gets particularly unsharp and stretched due to the perspective correction in the most extreme 1000 pixels or so on the left (where it is most obvious) and right. Please consider cropping.
MER-C 14:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
It's been cropped, so support.
MER-C 11:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support. Sharp enough in the crop. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 19:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)reply
That is not quite what personality rights protect. Say for example I own a company that makes strawberry jam and I take a photo of you to use on my logo; I plaster your photograph on every jar and use your likeness to advertise and sell my product. I would be violating your personality rights. That is not the same as taking your photograph in public, and selling the photograph or using the photograph on my commercial website. I don't think any personality rights apply in this case, unless Japan has some specialized laws. The crucial difference is the use of the likeness akin to a trademark which is not the case here. What may apply is
WP:BLP. However, I don't think any of the faces are that clearly recognizable here. Even if they were, they are in public and have no expectation of privacy here, AFAIK. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 17:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Just on this point, this photo depicts one of the entrances to the Kabukichō area from the main road through Shinjuku. While some parts of Kabukichō are a red light district, this part most certainly isn't: it's a touristy street of restaurants and bars which attracts vast crowds.
Nick-D (
talk) 23:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes. Different from
Shinjuku Golden Gai, in the same district, where photography is explicitly prohibited --
Basile Morin (
talk) 23:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Kabukicho red gate and colorful neon street signs at night, Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 21:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Needs restoration. Also, it would be helpful if the documentation was improved - what part of Tehran is this, and in which direction does the image look?
MER-C 11:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)reply
There is central of modern Tehran sited north of Tehran at the time of taking the photo. Direction of of photo is south to north.
Alborzagros (
talk) 11:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm more interested in the landmarks - in particular the large square. Would the walled area be what is now the
Park-e Shahr and the
National Garden, Tehran? (By the way, don't let the silence deter you. Participation is higher than this and this image when restored it is definitely worth considering for its value as a historical document, composition notwithstanding. I believe
Adam Cuerden takes requests.)
MER-C 20:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support - Thanks MER-C. This was a prominent example at the Camp exhibit at the Met. The EV comes from that, and from documentation of a recognized design from Christopher Bailey (and for Burberry). That said, it's true that photographs are static. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support. --
Gnosis (
talk) 07:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator – ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 20:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support having this as featured content. But listings here are explicitly for featured pictures. There appears to be no other more general featured content process, and a former featured sound project was discontinued in 2011. Is this the right way to reinstate sounds as featured content? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 20:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I guess, in a way, I am advocating a merger/expansion of scope. Perhaps a change, to
Wikipedia:Featured media and "Today's featured media". This may require an RfC since there are implications on the Main Page. I was testing the waters. IMO, it is not a large leap. We already feature videos, films, why not music, sound? ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 07:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I'd say revive
Wikipedia:Featured sounds, but list all media nominations on the same page. Sounds are assessed in a different way than pictures.
MER-C 11:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I partially agree with MER-C, but the nominations shouldn't be listed on the same page.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 15:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I assumed that WP:FS died because of low participation. Wouldn't a separate nomination page doom any revival to the same fate? ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 15:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)reply
That's what just happened on Commons, I think. If we were to credibly revive featured sounds, we need to solve the participation in nominations problem somehow.
MER-C 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I like the idea of featured sounds. It would be nice to vote for them on this page if feasible.
Bammesk (
talk) 04:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I agree with
Coffeeandcrumbs and others that it would best to hold FS noms here. We already do videos, animations, etc.
Geoffroi 21:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)reply
That’s because videos and animations have a visual element, which audio files lack.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 04:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Featured videos usually have to have high audio quality, but that's probably just splitting hairs...
Geoffroi 22:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose, ineligible. I am not in principle opposed to bringing sounds into this process, but I thijnk we need to have a discussion about changing the policies/prodcedures. We can't just start nominating them here.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 13:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support as featured media. It appears that we do have
media that went to FPC in the past.
Taewangkorea (
talk) 22:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Movies are within scope because they are moving pictures (it's in the name).
MER-C 18:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
We don't have the voters for a separate nom page, so if they're not listed here they'll be invisible and neglected.
Geoffroi 01:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC
It doesn't really matter, because Featured sounds is inactive, and these can't be promoted as featured pictures (as they are not mentioned in the
featured picture criteria, while videos are).
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 08:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't go so far as to say it doesn't matter. It's a loss to Wikipedia to let these sound nominations descend into the void and be forgotten and neglected.
Geoffroi 17:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – the architecture seems to be stretched horizontally in this photo. I was looking at other images in the article, these two:
[7] and
[8]. There is an engraved script on top of the front door, and looking at the rectangular frame of that script, and comparing to nom image, the nom image seems to be stretched.
Bammesk (
talk) 04:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now based on Bammesk's observation, confirmed by other photos on the web (e.g.
[9],
[10]). The panel above the door in all other photos is slightly wider than it is tall, while the panels above the windows are significantly taller than they are wide; this picture makes the panel above the door nearly twice as wide as it is tall, and the panels above the windows square. It should be easy enough to fix, though.
TSP (
talk) 13:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support – Nice set. (I am not sure, maybe posterization on the female bokeh?)
Bammesk (
talk) 04:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Toned down the noise reduction slightly similarly to the White-naped Honeyeater.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 08:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support. Superb work by photographer. I just wish the stick where male is, was little more woody color. --
Gnosis (
talk) 06:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support the image of the male (
File:Melanodryas cucullata - Glen Davis.jpg) only. The image of the female appears to be too aggressively post-processed, the feathers on the underside don't look natural. Also, what is that above her beak?
MER-C 18:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I figured everyone would be cool with cloning it out and did so. I assume it's a bit of spider web or something that's out of focus.
JJ Harrison (
talk)
The bokeh has banding (posterization?) in upper right area, very minute but visible I think! ConditionalSupport.
Bammesk (
talk) 04:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes you're right. I toned down the noise reduction and I think it's gone now.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 08:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Bammesk Could you check whether the above modification is good enough for you? Regards,
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 21:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes I revised my comment above.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator – ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 12:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support – historic artifact, EV as lead image. (also would support a delist and replace when a higher quality version becomes available)
Bammesk (
talk) 16:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose - original was too poor quality, making the restoration futile. This subject deserves a better quality image.
MER-C 17:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak Support per Bammesk.
Geoffroi 18:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Withdraw – I have my eye on a better image to represent this. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 18:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2019 at 17:16:05 (UTC)
Reason
I thought this deserved a second chance. I nominated it originally a little under a year ago; it received some support, but questions were raised about the fact that it was a new, short article. Since then, the article has been stable, though attracted edits from a few people. The picture remains a high-quality portrait of a notable individual by a notable photographer. (Also, the subject is non-binary; would this be our first FP of a non-binary person? I'm not sure.)
Support as nominator –
Tomer T (
talk) 13:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak support. Sharp where it counts, but the DOF is a little shallow - lack of detail on the tail is a minus. I wonder how much this could be mitigated by trading ISO for aperture.
MER-C 17:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I doubt one could make that trade off further without reducing sharpness for in focus areas - it's already at f14.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 17:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak support – the head is in focus but the rest of the body is too soft, focus stacking two or three shots on the near side or a wider angle lens (if possible) could have helped.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak support LArgely per Bammesk. Where it's good, it's excellent, but there's a lot out of focus. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.4% of all
FPs 04:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose – I do not doubt the high notability but I am sure a much better photograph of the subject can be achieved. My opinion would be different if the subject was no longer living or that the photo was not taken just 5 years ago. Hamal is still the host of Ko Banchha Crorepati and therefore still in his prime. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 10:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Per previous. Fuzzy at full res. Black suit & black BG = overly dark image. –
Sca (
talk) 16:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Sca and C&C.
Geoffroi 01:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Curious: How do you achieve these neutral backgrounds, so alike in all the photos? --
Janke |
Talk 18:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Generally speaking by having the background distant from the subject. Here background for these is very dry grass on a gentle slope behind the branch. The photos are taken from a hide in an area experiencing drought near a water source, namely a bird bath at
some accommodation which I found out about and booked in the area. I sat in a hide for most of the few days there but the camera didn't move very much, hence the similarity of the backgrounds. Unfortunately much of the bush around the property has since been burned in the
Gospers Mountain bushfire so I'm afraid that this approach in this location won't exactly be a repeatable activity.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 19:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose – inappropriate (excessive) digital manipulation.
FP criteria 8 says limited, well-done corrections. Here, the background is transformed, not corrected. It looks artificial or fake.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I struck that portion of my comments. The backgrounds still look odd or artificial, as if they were manipulated in post process (rather than real life). The images have EV, so I understand the support votes, but I still lean to oppose based on the aesthetics of the images.
Bammesk (
talk) 16:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support. It's a shame that the positioning is a little different, but I'd support either individually, so I'm happy to support as a pair.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 18:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose – inappropriate (excessive) digital manipulation.
FP criteria 8 says limited, well-done corrections. Here, the background is transformed, not corrected. It looks artificial or fake.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I struck that portion of my comments. The background still looks odd or artificial, as if it was manipulated in post process (rather than real life). The image has EV, so I understand the support votes, but I still lean to oppose based on the aesthetics of the image. @
JJ Harrison: the background can use a touch-up at the tip of the tail.
Bammesk (
talk) 16:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Support. --
Gnosis (
talk) 22:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose – inappropriate (excessive) digital manipulation.
FP criteria 8 says limited, well-done corrections. Here, the background is transformed, not corrected. It looks artificial or fake.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I struck that portion of my comments. The background still looks odd or artificial, as if it was manipulated in post process (rather than real life). The image has EV, so I understand the support votes, but I still lean to oppose based on the aesthetics of the image.
Bammesk (
talk) 16:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply