Comment: The music is under an NC license. --
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I've emailed the music author to see if they would be willing to relicense the music. Stay tuned...
Nosferattus (
talk) 16:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)reply
As mentioned by King of Hearts below, the music licensing situation has been resolved.
Nosferattus (
talk) 22:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Support The licensing is all good now. --
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Conditional Support if the image remains stable over the 10 day nom period. The nom doesn't meet the 7 day waiting period, see
FP criterion #5, but I think this case meets the "obvious cases" exception (FP criterion 5) and shall remain stable.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The video is still featured in the article (10 days later), so the above support vote should be counted.
Nosferattus (
talk) 20:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment – Nomination doesn't meet the 7 day waiting period (FP criterion 5). I don't think the sharpness is FP quality (I am open to reconsidering though).
Bammesk (
talk) 04:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Support Unopposed at Commons and I don't think we should second guess on technical quality, although the visibility that day was really poor for photography. But you should have waited
TheFreeWorldCharlesjsharp (
talk) 20:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I guess the nomination was too quickly.
TheFreeWorld (
talk) 12:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment – Promotional then, but historical now, EV is good enough for me. However, I'd only support Alt 1 (the edited version) shown lower down on the file's page, fingerprints & dust removed (from a 35 mm slide, I presume). --
Janke |
Talk 12:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Added as Alt 1. Inclined to agree this is superior - the proposed version crops off part of the subject, for a start.
TSP (
talk) 13:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
One little tweak would be nice; The color is a bit wrong in the alt, the Mac looks brownish gray. The original Mac had a slightly yellowish hue, which is much better in the original. --
Janke |
Talk 16:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment: If this photo was published with good reproduction at the time? If so period magazine/promotional material may help guide to original color details. --
Infrogmation (
talk) 16:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
If necessary, I could try doing a color tweak - I know the color exactly, since I still own an original Mac 512K... EDIT: Done. --
Janke |
Talk 09:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support Alt 1. (I uploaded the first version; I only cropped the non-photographic border and did a rough levels adjust to be closer to what looked more natural to me - I just wanted to get a usable version of Commons promptly after I became aware of this free licensed photo was available.) I'm glad to see this photo getting the attention to restoration by others more skilled with photoshop than I. --
Infrogmation (
talk) 16:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Support alt 1 per Janke.
Nosferattus (
talk) 20:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Update - I uploaded a color-corrected Alt 1, over the old one. Now the color of the Mac looks like the original. --
Janke |
Talk 09:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak support ALT 1 – A bit concerned about the Encyclopedic Value; the image is used in just one article, that too is decorative. I'm open to reconsider, just ping me. –
Kavyansh.Singh (
talk) 15:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support alt 1 - what once was promotional is historic now.
Artem.G (
talk) 07:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Steve Jobs and Macintosh computer, January 1984, by Bernard Gotfryd - edited.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 06:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support Alt 1 --
Janke |
Talk 15:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support, prefer Alt 1 –
Bammesk (
talk) 16:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support, prefer Alt 1 – Slightly artefacty at full-res, but terrific EV.
TSP (
talk) 10:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support alt 1.
MER-C 08:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Noisy, but what kills it is the top-left artifacting at the fringe of the blown out highlights. It's a severe, sharp line between blue sky and total white. --
Veggies (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support Alt 1 - Much better. --
Veggies (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I edited the sky area and added an Alternate. I denoised the entire sky, and smoothed the clouds on the left side. Pinging participants @
TheFreeWorld,
Janke,
TSP,
MER-C, and
Veggies:.
Bammesk (
talk) 01:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks Bammesk - I'm not hugely bothered by the sky personally, as it's not the subject, but worth sorting out.
TSP (
talk) 11:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment Copyright status unclear, photo may not be by "Hollywood Magazine". --
Janke |
Talk 15:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)reply
It doesn't matter what the source is (ebay, a magazine, a blog, etc.). Publicity photos circulated without a copyright notice, which were common at the time
[1], are in public domain. Everything about this photo says it falls in that category. Two FP examples:
[2],
[3].
Bammesk (
talk) 16:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose as is. It needs restoration on the right side of her face (cheek, eye area).
Bammesk (
talk) 17:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment Copyright status unclear, "source: eBay" isn't good enough. --
Janke |
Talk 15:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)reply
It doesn't matter what the source is (ebay, a magazine, a blog, etc.). Publicity photos circulated without a copyright notice, which were common at the time
[4], are in public domain. Everything about this photo says it falls in that category. Two FP examples:
[5],
[6].
Bammesk (
talk) 15:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support The
original Ebay item is in the file history and clearly doesn't display a copyright notice. Per my understanding, works published without a notice between 1923 and 1977 automatically ended up in the public domain. I almost opposed the image when I noticed the original was a lower resolution image (and that the image looked a little fuzzy), but on closer inspection of the file history, it does look like a genuine higher resolution version was uploaded. —
CodeHydro 15:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment – I am not familiar with all the details, but for promotional prints like this, I think something is needed to establish that it was circulated without a copyright notice and also to establish the date of publication. Placing an inquiry at
Commons:Village pump/Copyright can clear the copyright status.
Bammesk (
talk) 17:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support – Nice portrait.
Yann (
talk) 20:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose - bad composition, the subject itself is blurry.
MER-C 13:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment – leaning to oppose, we have this FP animation:
[7] in the
Great Red Spot article, and
This photo is a more interesting depiction.
Bammesk (
talk) 16:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)reply
You're right, struck my support above. --
Janke |
Talk 17:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2021 at 18:20:02 (UTC)
Reason
The photograph significantly improves the article on its corresponding subject. It is of a high technical standard and resolution, with the main subject clear and in good focus. It illustrates the bridge in a compelling way, is free, has good lighting, a good file description, and helps Wikipedians to understand the subject better. It is a photograph from before the bridge's renovation, as part of historic documentation, and comes from an authoritative source, adding to its encyclopedic value. It meets all FP criteria and is among the best examples of Hayden Bridge, and of wrought iron, phoenix column bridges that the encyclopedia has to offer.
Support as uploader — JeffG. ツ 05:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment – Why B&W for a pic. taken in 1990? –
Sca (
talk) 11:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Sca, This is the standard format for photographs by the Historic American Engineering Record. See the
HAER Guidelines.
Tyrone Madera (
talk) 16:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment – It needs a bit of restoration in the sky area, the label on top right corner as well. I think the original
Here is in B&W because it was shot on large format (5x7 inch) film
[8] which gives much higher resolution for (government) documentation purposes, as opposed to 35mm color film (the digital scan isn't high resolution though).
Bammesk (
talk) 16:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Jeff G., I did a restoration of the original TIF (removed scratches/dust), cloned out the label on top right corner, and uploaded the file on top of your version. I didn't change the contrast of the original TIF. I agree with TSP's comments below, I think the contrast revision was excessive. But if you want to change the contrast slightly, feel free. Support.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - I'm not sure about the amount of contrast that's been added in the edit. Looking at the diagonal pillar coming down from the front of the bridge, on
the original the pillar has a smooth gradient, clearly showing the round cross-section. On the proposed edit, the upper side of the pillar looks (at least on both my monitors) almost blown out, obscuring the shape of the pillar. The edit has also darkened the underside of the bridge, hiding some detail there, and made the sky harsher and the dust specks more obvious. There are certainly also areas where it has brought out detail, especially in thumbnail, but I'm not sure it's universally an improvement - I think a slightly gentler touch might bring better results?
TSP (
talk) 17:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
TSP &
Bammesk, I've added two identical versions with lower contrast based on
File:Hayden Bridge (cropped).jpg, but my attempts to do things properly have only mangled the file descriptions more from their original states. They are
File:Hayden Bridge lower contrast.jpeg and
File:Hayden Bridge lower contrast.jpg. The pages are messy and I don't know how best to fix them. Hopefully, these are more the contrast you're looking for and at least function as a proof of concept for reducing the contrast. Best,
Tyrone Madera (
talk) 17:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Tyrone Madera, I see no difference between the nominated image and the two files you created yesterday:
[9],
[10]. I suggest you request the deletion of the two files at
Commons:Help desk. You are the uploader, so your request would be noncontraversial. It would be routine deletion.
Bammesk (
talk) 17:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Thank you,
Bammesk. I believe I am either experiencing extreme technical difficulties now or did at the time I made those uploads. I've requested their deletion, but I remember the contrast being higher when I made the adjustments. Oh well, I suppose now it's a mystery. Thanks for correcting the image! Best,
Tyrone Madera (
talk) 19:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. I'm sorry -- I'm not really clear on why this is not in colour. I had a look at the guidelines linked above, but, unless I missed it (and I may have done) there wasn't really an explanation of why black and whie is preferable... (Weak solely because I may be missing something obvious.)
Josh Milburn (
talk) 18:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I don't think they made (or make)
large format (5x7 inch) color film. If they do or did, it's rare and not common. Pinging @
Janke: he may know more about this. In 1990 (pre digital photography) the government's objective was to document "significant" structures
[11],
[12],
[13]. Capturing the details of this structure is why large format B&W film was used (large film ~ high resolution ~ more detail). Color information wasn't important. That's why it's B&W, but that doesn't justify supporting the nom (the digital scan isn't high resolution anyway). I am supporting the nom because the bridge has two innovative design features, "milestones" per Library of Congress
[14] (for its time, 1882) and the photo shows the two features in sufficient detail (
Whipple truss and
Phoenix column), noted in
article's text as well. The image enhances the article. It shows the bridge in its original state, before it was converted to a pedestrian trail with additional fences
[15]. The color information would have been nice, but it's not detrimental to what it shows.
Bammesk (
talk) 03:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2021 at 01:24:34 (UTC)
Reason
Image demonstrates the incredible magnification achieved by the subject of the article. Image is a composite of 7 other free-use images, with no alternations other than cropping, rotation, and scaling as appropriate for the zoom step. Image is sufficiently high resolution to see many of the larger features of each step in the red box of the previous step.
Support as nominator – —
CodeHydro 01:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I don't think this illustrates the magnification well enough to be featured. Besides, the image of the rover is incongruous with the rest of the series. --
Janke |
Talk 16:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Per Janke. Confusing montage. –
Sca (
talk) 12:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - The montage actually zooms into the actual position of the Apollo 16 Rover, which is the exact same rover being featured in that image you're calling incongruous. There is no higher magnification available of the step before that one. I used the highest resolution image available of the Apollo 16 site from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, the newest orbiter around the moon by NASA. Sure, the picture with the astronaut isn't bird's eye like the rest, but I'd say showing the astronaut better demonstrates the magnification because it gives a familiar size to compare: the size of a human. —
CodeHydro 15:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
If you think about it, the fact that a satellite from moon-orbit can barely resolve a 10-foot long rover while the Event Horizon Telescope's image of the black hold was effectively equivalent to resolving a tennis-ball-sized object on the moon from Earth makes the black hole image even more impressive. —
CodeHydro 15:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support --
Yann (
talk) 12:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - Description on file page is somewhat sketchy... do we know it's in the Persian corridor? Low EV because of that. --
Janke |
Talk 14:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I read it before commenting. I still think "Somewhere in Iran. An American engine transporting allied aid for Russia, stopping at a station rimmed by mountains " is too sketchy. --
Janke |
Talk 19:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)reply
As I know a bit that region, this is in Northern Iran, so the description "Persian Corridor" is adequate. Anyway, the Persian Corridor means all the railroad from the Persian Gulf to the Soviet Union border.
Yann (
talk) 20:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment – Suggest change engine to locomotive throughout. "Engine" can mean all sorts of things, but "locomotive" = railroad. –
Sca (
talk) 12:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support - Wonderful photo. I think there's a bias sometimes in FPC against nighttime panoramas, but I love them. --
Veggies (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment – good image but it doesn't meet the minimum 1500 pixels requirement of
FP criterion 2.
Bammesk (
talk) 17:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Agree, but "Exceptions to this rule may be made where justified on a case-by-case basis, such as for historical, technically difficult or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired." The image was created by NASA, and no other version is available.
Artem.G (
talk) 18:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I agree, the exception covers this case. The photo is a 360 degree view (I am comparing the foreground with
this photo). The image caption in the article (Commons file description too) can/should say it's a 360 view.
Bammesk (
talk) 19:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Caption updated.
Artem.G (
talk) 19:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support – I added source details to clarify this composite image was created at NASA.
Bammesk (
talk) 16:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support –
Yann (
talk) 20:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support --
Janke |
Talk 15:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2021 at 10:24:36 (UTC)
Reason
high quality and resolution picture used in 3 articles. This is the only known photograph of an African American Union soldier with his family. Identified as Sgt. Samuel Smith of the 119th USCT.
Support as nominator –
Yann (
talk) 10:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Too much frame – visual information not readily accessible. –
Sca (
talk) 12:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Sca: The frame is very much part of the point here. This is also to show how such fragile pictures have been kept to preserve them. Beside, you can zoom in to see the picture itself in great details. Regards,
Yann (
talk) 18:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support - Excellent. Also: for editors like
Sca: the instructions above clearly state that the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size. And at full size you can see the fine details of the picture and figures within very clearly. --
Veggies (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support – Nice restoration but it needs a little more.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Done.
Yann (
talk) 21:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support IMO, the frame actually increases the EV in the
Ambrotype article, since the images were so often elaborately mounted. Besides, it's been the lead image there since 2012... --
Janke |
Talk 14:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support – I also think that the frame adds to its encyclopedia value. Astonished to see the details, for example, the soldier is wearing Abraham Lincoln's presidential campaign button. –
Kavyansh.Singh (
talk) 17:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support: Very nice restoration. Of high EV, especially given the subject, time period, and quality of the photograph.
Tyrone Madera (
talk) 18:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:Sgt. Samuel Smith, African American soldier in Union uniform with wife and two daughters.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 19:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2021 at 19:37:42 (UTC)
Reason
one of the most famous picture, one of the iconic images of the 20th century. The quality is a bit low compared to today standard, but considering its notability, it is adequate (7.29 Megapixel).
Comment – Reproduced/published zillions of times – so many times it's become a bromide. And BTW it was staged, with an artificial draft blowing up through the grating. Comp. marred by indistinct people behind her. –
Sca (
talk) 12:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)reply
PS: AFAIK, all staff photos were copyrighted by the AP (for which I once worked). –
Sca (
talk) 12:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Don't see anything about a "license" there. In any case, IMO it fails Criterion 3 due to the technical defects noted in my first comment above, and to lack of EV in what is a promotional photographic cliché. –
Sca (
talk) 12:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)reply
On the Commons page of the image, it says that it "is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1926 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice." For our purposes, given that Wikipedia is hosted in the United States, this makes it a free image.
Tyrone Madera (
talk) 18:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
This is of much better quality than the lead image. Should it be changed?
Yann (
talk) 15:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment – I doubt the nom image is the best view of the place. According to the first sentence in
This section,
This photo is a more significant view, but the scaffolds are a problem, and the lighting isn't that good.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment Not a fan of the heavy top-right lighting, being it in the painting itself, or in the photo technique. --
Janke |
Talk 13:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Well, in this case, I guess that the lighting here is same as in the painting. –
Kavyansh.Singh (
talk) 15:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Hi @
Janke, any followups? I think that it has high encyclopedia value, and lighting isn't a major concern, as it is a painting. Thanks for your thoughts! –
Kavyansh.Singh (
talk) 12:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
Bammesk (
talk) 00:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment Not very delicious looking, lacks "wow" factor... --
Janke |
Talk 17:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Sorta ugly, all right. –
Sca (
talk) 12:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment Is it supposed to look delicious? These berries are in their natural environment, and don't tend appear all that appetizing by default before preparation.
Tyrone Madera (
talk) 18:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support: High quality and educational. Shows berries in natural environment, before being picked and consumed.
Tyrone Madera (
talk) 18:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support –
Yann (
talk) 19:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2021 at 20:45:03 (UTC)
Reason
The image significantly improves the article on the 1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak and is a prototypical example of human geography. It is of a high technical standard and resolution. It illustrates the outbreak and human geography in a compelling way, is free, has a good file description, and helps Wikipedians to understand the subject better. It comes from an authoritative source and is an important part of the history of disease mapping and epidemiology, adding to its encyclopedic value. It meets all FP criteria and is among the best examples of disease mapping that the encyclopedia has to offer.
Janke, can the need for "Wow-factor" be overcome by the historical significance and encyclopedic value of an image? Bammensk, Nick-D, and another user below have argued that this would be true in the case of this map. Just interested in your thoughts.
Tyrone Madera (
talk) 17:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment – "General interest" is not a valid oppose rationale. We are an encyclopedia, not a magazine.
Bammesk (
talk) 04:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)reply
For the umpteenth time, all FP/Cs are pro forma subject to Main Page standards. This one flagrantly fails to meet MP standards for notability, clarity, visual acessibility, general interest, etc. Get off it. –
Sca (
talk) 12:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)reply
"General interest" has nothing to do with it. We have a 15+ year archive of featured content
[16],
[17],
[18], just look at the archives, it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. FA, FL, FP criteria
[19],
[20],
[21] and instructions
[22],
[23],
[24] all emphasize "article" enhancement, there is no mention of "general interest" nor "main-page". That's not an oversight or a mistake.
Bammesk (
talk) 03:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment @all — If no one likes this nomination, is it bad form to take it down early? It appears clear to me that this one is not well received given the current feedback. My apologies if I have overlooked the spirit of Featured Pictures in this case. Thank you all for taking the time to respond. Best,
Tyrone Madera (
talk) 16:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes, a candidate can be taken down, it's usually done on request. Specifically, in this case, it looks like this candidate doesn't fulfill criterion #3 at
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria, i.e. it's not among "Wikipedia's best" - but don't let that discourage you from submitting other candidates! --
Janke |
Talk 18:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Tyrone, the average success rate of FP nominations is ~1 out of 2. There are approximately
7083 FPs, and
14720 nominations, so it's ~50%.
Bammesk (
talk) 14:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support Excellent quality rendition of an iconic map. At least one book has been published about the map, and its creation formed part of an important development in modern public health. The map doesn't have 'wow' factor visually, but that's not the point: it was a key tool in disease management.
Nick-D (
talk) 03:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Has its iconic status been certified by the International Iconography Commission? –
Sca (
talk) 12:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Googling 'John snow map iconic' returns
lots of sources that go to this, so yes. See
this story for instance.
This book has a strong focus on the map.
Nick-D (
talk) 07:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)reply
As well as the linked book Ghost Map there's also at least one more book The Strange Case of the Broad Street Pump: John Snow and the Mystery of Cholera. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 00:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Cholera, Chloroform, and the Science of Medicine: A Life of John Snow also includes heavy discussion of the map in "Chapter 12: Snow and the Mapping of Cholera Epidemics".
Tyrone Madera (
talk) 17:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support It's of historical significance.61.69.172.53 (
talk) 00:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I struck this vote. See instructions on top of
This page. Votes by editors with less than 100 edits will not be counted.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support – "historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all" (FP
criterion 3). Large part of the
Outbreak article is about Snow's work and this map of his fits in well, it "adds EV and helps readers understand the article" (criterion 5).
Bammesk (
talk) 03:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment It's of historical significance.
61.69.172.53 (
talk) 10:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support A good rendition of an absolutely iconic and historically important map.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 18:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support. An iconic and famous image, whose immediate readability revolutionized epidemiology. Good-quality rendition. The kneejerk opposition to anything with technical informational content rather than being a pretty snapshot of a view or fuzzy animal, on display in some of the comments above, is a big part of why my participation in FPC has been significantly reduced from what it once was. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 22:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)reply
If you are bored by informative and historically significant images, why are you here rather than at the Commons FPC? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 16:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Because promoted FPCs all are potentially Main Page material, and TFPs help to show Wikipedia's face to the world. For that we need photographic or graphics excellence as well as editorial excellence. –
Sca (
talk) 12:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)reply
There is no excellence in rejecting nominations based on your personal standards. There is no excellence in a main-page that doesn't convey what Wikipedia is.
Bammesk (
talk) 03:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Absolutely not personal, not in the least. They are a) Main Page standards, and b) general principles of graphics and publishing (with which I have long experience). Your gratuitous accusation is a violation of
WP:AGF and
WP:NPA. –
Sca (
talk) 12:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)reply
FPC standards are
FP criteria and
instructions. A) and B) are your personally chosen standards. You have been rejecting noms based on your own chosen standards for a long time
[25], which manifests itself in slow and persistent disruption: frustrates participants including newbies, weighs on participation, sinks nominations in certain categories. Your technical reviews aren't sound either
[26]. I agree with Rhododendrites
[27] on a topic ban for you.
Bammesk (
talk) 03:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes, of course there are. So what? That doesn't change the internal dynamics of TFPs, nor the MP standards for them. –
Sca (
talk) 19:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose – main bird isn't sharp enough at full size, and the other 3 birds are distracting.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment There appears to be some heat haze in the photo, which basically means that it doesn't match all criteria. Since IPs can't vote, I might as well just comment.
61.69.172.53 (
talk) 04:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose Not eligible for FP status as it's not used in any articles. It's also not a good photo (these cockatoos are very common and very friendly, and so easy to photograph in a wide range of settings), so has no prospect of being assessed as a FP in the future
Nick-D (
talk) 07:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Per previous two. –
Sca (
talk) 12:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
MER-C 09:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - it's a nice picture generally, but I'm finding that bright patch in the top right corner a little off-putting. Is there a reason for that? —
Amakuru (
talk) 09:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)reply
If I understand your question?; the bright top right area is just the background
bokeh. For photos of natural subjects (animals, plants), having a flat background can look monotonic and unnatural (
example). Given a choice, I prefer a non-flat varied bokeh.
Bammesk (
talk) 15:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2021 at 10:33:32 (UTC)
Reason
Photo offers a striking view (the only one on Commons) of a unique structure, conforms to technical standard, is 12 MP, and illustrates a physical phenomenon (
birefringence) at colossal scale. If possible, appearance on November 4 would mark the 323rd anniversary of the death of
Rasmus Bartholin who discovered birefringence.
Oppose, for now at least I don't see much encyclopedic value in any article other than
birefringence, which it isn't in. I'd actually say it has negative encyclopedic value in
Sky Pool, London and
Embassy Gardens and will only confuse readers rather than increasing their understanding of those topics. I'd add it to
birefringence, and if it ends up being stable there, then renominate in a few weeks.
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 18:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment – per Calliopejen1, I support if its article placement is improved. Great photo. It should be FP on Commons too. It also shows the
Standing wave of the water (i.e. the "
stress" caused by it), particularly in the unperturbed top half.Bammesk (
talk) 01:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC) . . . . Struck standing waves. At full size the lateral ridges appear to be seams in the acrylic floor.
Bammesk (
talk) 02:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support – Looks generally good, although image might need slight tilting to the left to even up vertical perspective. –
Sca (
talk) 12:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Done - You are right, thanks. A slight perspective correction was applied.
Alvesgaspar (
talk) 13:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator –
Yann (
talk) 19:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Support; for the record, I did not create it (that would be Tom Patterson, also the creator of FP
File:Everest-3D-Map-Type-EN.jpg, who released it into the public domain). I just uploaded/added it to articles.eviolite(talk) 19:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC) I see that this has now been noted in the nomination.
eviolite(talk) 19:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)reply