Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words", the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria.
If you believe an image should be featured, create a subpage (use the "For Nominations" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section. For promotion, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. All users may comment. However, only those who have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and with at least 100 edits will be included in the numerical count. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. Nominations started in December are given three extra days, due to the holidays slowing down activity here. The archive contains all opinions and comments collected for candidate nominations and their nomination results. If you nominate an image here, please consider also uploading and nominating it at Commons to help ensure that the pictures can be used not just in the English Wikipedia but on all other Wikimedia projects as well.
A featured picture can be nominated for delisting if you feel it no longer lives up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Create a subpage (use the "For Delists" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section. Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture. For delisting, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures, except that:.If the image to be delisted is not used in any articles by the time of closure, it must be delisted. If it is added to articles during the nomination, at least one week's stability is required for the nomination to be closed as "Kept". The nomination may be suspended if a week hasn't yet passed to give the rescue a chance. Outside of the nominator, all voters are expected to have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and to have made a minimum of 100 edits. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. As with regular nominations, delist nominations are given three extra days to run if started in December.
|
Featured picture tools:
|
Step 1:
Evaluate Evaluate the merit of a nomination against the featured picture criteria. Most users reference terms from this page when evaluating nominations. |
Step 2:
Create a subpage
To create a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates for your nomination, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the field below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button.
To create a subpage for your delist, add a title for the image you want to delist/replace in the field below and click the "Create new delist nomination" button. |
Step 3:
Transclude and link Transclude the newly created subpage to the Featured picture candidate list (). |
How to comment for Candidate Images
How to comment for Delist Images
Editing candidates
Is my monitor adjusted correctly?
|
- To see recent changes, .
FPCs needing feedback |
---|
Current nominations
Original France XV
Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2016 at 10:55:49 (UTC)
- Reason
- EV. Image of the French rugby team, before its first ever international test match in 1906.
- Articles in which this image appears
- History of the French national rugby union team, The Original All Blacks
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport
- Creator
- FunkyCanute
- Support as nominator – FunkyCanute (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – Interesting, but pretty dark. Sca (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose and Speedy Close - Far below the minimum resolution. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Well below the minimum resolution requirement. Mattximus (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per other – Jobas (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- @FunkyCanute: Are you familiar with the Gallica downloader tool? The image is much higher resolution if you know how to download from Gallica. https://tools.wmflabs.org/yifeibot/gallica/index.py is the tool; let me know if you need help. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
William H. Crook by Frances Benjamin Johnston
Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2016 at 03:58:09 (UTC)
- Reason
- An excellent image, replacing the complete lack of any image of him we had before.
- Articles in which this image appears
- William H. Crook
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
- Creator
- Frances Benjamin Johnston; restored by Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Seems a bit soft, but definitely acceptable. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- [Forgot to transclude: Not quite sure how Chris found it, but, eh...] Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Extendable ears. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Nice restoration. Mattximus (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Jobas (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Cinnamon redux
Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2016 at 18:37:55 (UTC)
- Reason
- A more recent take on this. High EV, with both powder and sticks, as well as dried flowers.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Cinnamon, Cinnamomum verum
- FP category for this image
- Food and drink
- Creator
- LivingShadow
- Support as nominator – Brandmeistertalk 18:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)- Sorry, Adam, but you can only !vote once. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support Very sharp for a macro, and very well-composed. The pure white is very good. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I thought this was cinnamon and not salsa. No double dipping! ;) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Part of me wants to say "shadow needs more feathering", but this is already miles above a lot of the macro product photography we see here. Very nice. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I think the fact that it has a shadow at all is good. I don't like those pictures of objects apparently hanging in space, with a background of featureless white. 86.171.43.82 (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. The edges of the shadow, however, could use a bit more work. But this is already good enough for FP status in my book, especially since the food category is underpopulated. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think the fact that it has a shadow at all is good. I don't like those pictures of objects apparently hanging in space, with a background of featureless white. 86.171.43.82 (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Fantastic photo, however, this should be the lead image in Cinnamon Mattximus (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support, meets criteria. SSTflyer 15:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Jobas (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support; a beautiful, high-quality image. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 18:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Two natives and canoes
Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2016 at 17:44:01 (UTC)
- Reason
- A nice EV pic depicting a fine art subject. Just stumbled on it, but caught attention at once.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Polynesia
- FP category for this image
- May be landscapes(?)
- Creator
- Anonymous, preserved in US Library of Congress
- Support as nominator – -The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – Indistinct and inky. Sca (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose far too blurry to be featured. Also, I don't know about the encyclopedic value of showing the bright colourful tropics in black and white... Mattximus (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per other – Jobas (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Poesaka Terpendam
Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2016 at 04:02:53 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality ad for one of Roekiah's last films. The magazine this was in was (fortunately) in very good condition - albeit a bit pricey - and what little damage there was has been restored.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Poesaka Terpendam
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
- Creator
- Tan's Film, restored by — Chris Woodrich (talk)
- Support as nominator – — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support Btw, Roekiah article doesn't mention this Roekia spelling on the poster (without "h"). Perhaps should be added. Brandmeistertalk 15:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note added (true story: there are at least four spellings used for Sorga Ka Toedjoe, and even the novelization isn't consistent as to which one it wants to use...) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Looks great to me, good EV. Mattximus (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Jobas (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Saltwater limpet diagram
Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2016 at 19:11:00 (UTC)
- Reason
- Freely licensed, accurate, and visually interesting image
- Articles in which this image appears
- Limpet, Patellogastropoda
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology
- Creator
- KDS4444
- Support as nominator – This one has been in the hopper for three years now, am finally more or less satisfied with it, please provide suggestions for improvements or point out errors, thanks!KDS4444Talk 19:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - It looks like you are trying to say that the aorta, ventricle and the atrium are part of the pericardium, which does not seem accurate. Also is auricle the correct term? I thought that was outdated, but I'm not sure about this particular species. Mattximus (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Good question. I am trying to say that the pericardium is a sack containing the auricle, ventricle, and aorta, as described here. To the best of my knowledge and understanding, this is still the accepted arrangement for these parts (though if you know differently then please tell me so I can correct the drawing). Also: I am finding the word "auricle" used in this text, which is pretty recent (Bulletin 38 is a Japanese publication well known for its coverage of the mollusca). The original work on which I based my information and terms is rather old, but as far as I know, it isn't considered flawed and its terms remain mostly current (though I did use "digestive gland" rather than "hepatopancreatic gland", which was the now-obsolete term given in the text, see above link re: the pericardium for said text). KDS4444Talk 04:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support, assuming KD's image is accurate. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I hope you wouldn't expect anything less of me! There is a fantastic Flickr photo album of a closely-related species, Patella ulyssiponensis, available here, which was only published in December of last year (long after I first tried to draw this limpet, but an invaluable resource for me as I tried to bring it up to FP quality). I have taken a certain amount of artistic/ creative license with regard to color and texture, but the placement of the organs is mathematically precise (save the shell and mantle, which I have excluded for obvious reasons). KDS4444Talk 10:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. The positioning of the labels is a bit messy. Sometimes there is a large gap between the label and the line, sometimes a small gap, apparently at random. 86.171.43.82 (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hm. You are right, and it is not random: it is an artifact of the way that Adobe Illustrator generates SVG files, and subsequently of the ways that different browsers interpret the resulting code. It is a problem I struggle with every time I try to generate an SVG diagram using Illustrator (which is a great program with some annoying flaws). I have already been looking into this, and will be posting a revised image post haste with this labeling issue (hopefully) fixed. KDS4444Talk 10:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Laura Dekker
Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2016 at 16:45:26 (UTC)
- Reason
- Giving this a try after some consideration. Has extra EV as the photo was taken when her solo circumnavigation was in progress (in 2011). Perhaps no one imagined that the youngest braveheart to make such an endeavor would be a girl.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Laura Dekker
- FP category for this image
- People/Sport
- Creator
- Savyasachi
- Support as nominator – Brandmeistertalk 16:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Not exactly when "in progress." Photo info (Eng. & Dutch) says she was speaking at the HISWA boat show in Amsterdam – hence the clutter in the background – and that her tour would resume after the show when she would be flown back to her sailboat Guppy. Sca (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I mean it happened after she had sailed from Gibraltar and before the sailing was completed. The photo is from 3 March 2011, so chronologically it's that period. Brandmeistertalk 16:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not exactly when "in progress." Photo info (Eng. & Dutch) says she was speaking at the HISWA boat show in Amsterdam – hence the clutter in the background – and that her tour would resume after the show when she would be flown back to her sailboat Guppy. Sca (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support All that aside, this appears to be a high-quality shot of a remarkable young woman in the midst of the thing that made her remarkable. High EV, [more than] adequate pixelage/ clarity/ photographic performance, freely licensed, all the flags say, "Go!" KDS4444Talk 05:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Agree with KDS4444 re illustrative value for the subject person – who appears to be a very pleasant young woman in the bloom of health. Sca (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Pose is sub-par, I think. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Aw, Chris, really?? I think the pose is just fine! I find it sincere and spontaneous without being awkward— meanwhile the images from her website here are posed shots which lack this quality, the YachtingWorld image here lacks the poignant depth of field that I really like in this image, the image here doesn't show her centered in the frame, and THIS image has a ridiculous pose! Meanwhile this image, which I think is brilliant and is obviously very professional, isn't being offered up as an FP candidate— but I think our candidate falls into the same quality class as that shot. You can't argue it isn't big enough (it is more than twice the minimum requirement in both width and height) or that it is over/ under exposed, over/ under saturated, visibly retouched, or misrepresentative of its subject, you must admit that it shows her in a nautically-themes setting which is exactly the one most suitable for her notoriety. We can agree to disagree, but I think this is a great shot of her and would be suitable for use in any glossy magazine and better than most anything you will find elsewhere on the Internet. KDS4444Talk 10:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- To expand on the issue I take with this: her body is leaning to the viewer's left, whereas her head is looking to the viewer's right. This causes unnecessary tension. I've also got a problem with the bright, busy background and her face being in the shadows. Although the background isn't overly blown (not as bad as some I've seen... or taken) it still detracts from the image. Though these are of different subjects, File:Dustin Brown 14, 2015 Wimbledon Qualifying - Diliff.jpg and File:Katie Swan 3, 2015 Wimbledon Qualifying - Diliff.jpg are both candid and work better as images. For posed images, I'm particularly fond of File:SkudinaEkaterina5.jpg, where the subject's sport is implied without taking the focus off her. This isn't a bad shot, but I don't think it's up to FP quality. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- It's a fine candid shot. Photog caught her with a natural expression that seems to embody a bit of amusement or a good sense of humor. Sca (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly.
And while that File:SkudinaEkaterina5.jpg is rightfully featured, it's a posed shot, unlike this one.Natural facial expressions and postures are almost always good in FP terms, methinks. Brandmeistertalk 14:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)- Only negative aspect is the background, which can be overlooked in this case, since it's blurry. Sca (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I did mention that File:SkudinaEkaterina5.jpg was posed, above, as you had mentioned some posed images of Dekker. Still can't say I get behind this image, sorry. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Only negative aspect is the background, which can be overlooked in this case, since it's blurry. Sca (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly.
- It's a fine candid shot. Photog caught her with a natural expression that seems to embody a bit of amusement or a good sense of humor. Sca (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Aw, Chris, really?? I think the pose is just fine! I find it sincere and spontaneous without being awkward— meanwhile the images from her website here are posed shots which lack this quality, the YachtingWorld image here lacks the poignant depth of field that I really like in this image, the image here doesn't show her centered in the frame, and THIS image has a ridiculous pose! Meanwhile this image, which I think is brilliant and is obviously very professional, isn't being offered up as an FP candidate— but I think our candidate falls into the same quality class as that shot. You can't argue it isn't big enough (it is more than twice the minimum requirement in both width and height) or that it is over/ under exposed, over/ under saturated, visibly retouched, or misrepresentative of its subject, you must admit that it shows her in a nautically-themes setting which is exactly the one most suitable for her notoriety. We can agree to disagree, but I think this is a great shot of her and would be suitable for use in any glossy magazine and better than most anything you will find elsewhere on the Internet. KDS4444Talk 10:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Negatives are distracting background and pose that makes it look as if she was caught unawares. 86.171.43.82 (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- as if she was caught unawares
- – aka a candid shot. Sca (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not really. It looks as if she has just become aware of the camera and is about to turn to look at it, or is trying to pose for the camera but has momentarily been distracted, but either way the result is a bit awkward. 86.171.43.82 (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Chris. The pose is awkward, body facing viewers left, head going right. It may be a candid shot, but there is no reason for this picture to be a candid shot. Mattximus (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support, as per Sca. FunkyCanute (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support as per Sca – Jobas (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Alphonse Bertillon
Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2016 at 01:14:36 (UTC)
- Reason
- Very good quality, high EV both for the individual and his findings
- Articles in which this image appears
- Alphonse Bertillon, Anthropological criminology
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle
- Creator
- Alphonse Bertillon
- Support as nominator – — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support Fascinating: Inventor using his invention on himself... ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Neat, but why such a strange crop of this image as the lead in Alphonse Bertillon? Mattximus (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- You'd have to ask the editor who added it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support' per Janke. Test drive on himself...-The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 16:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - EV, and it's just way too cool...--Godot13 (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, cool indeed - I first read about him and his system in 1970, in the fascinating book Das Jahrhudert der Detektive by Jürgen Thorwald, strongly recommended if you can find it (or a translation - I read it in Swedish.) --Janke | Talk 09:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Jobas (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Nominations — to be closed
Nominations in this category are older than ten days and are to be closed. New votes will no longer be accepted.
Older nominations requiring additional input from users
These nominations have been moved here because consensus is impossible to determine without additional input from those who participated in the discussion. Usually this is because there was more than one edit of the image available, and no clear preference for one of them was determined. If you voted on these images previously, please update your vote to specify which edit(s) you are supporting.
Tobias and the Angel
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2015 at 13:18:36 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good scan, interesting theme. The painting is by the Italian Renaissance painter Filippino Lippi, depicting Tobias and the Angel, rom c. 1475-1480. The painting is in the the National Gallery of Art of Washington, DC, where Crisco took it to give everybody a nice Christmas mood, angels and happy end and all that...
- Articles in which this image appears
- Tobias and the Angel (Filippino Lippi) (own article), Tobias and the Angel, List of painters and architects of Venice
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
- Creator
- Filippino Lippi
- Support as co-nominator – — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support as co-nominator – Hafspajen (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - sst✈(discuss) 15:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support – Yann (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support – DreamSparrow Chat 17:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support – Jobas (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
SupportSupport Alt16:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC) - Atsme📞📧 16:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)- Support I support the second imageCharlesjsharp (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment While it looks perfectly fine, I note that file is less than half the size of the download of the same resolution in the stated source [1]. This suggests re-compression and, while subtle, I think the current version is inferior to the source version because of it. Also it appears the zoomable image viewer version in source is of significantly greater resolution and detail than either [2]. – Wolftick (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have stitched together a substantially higher resolution and more detailed version from the image viewer on source. I'm fairly new to this: Assuming this is okay, should I upload as a new version of the file or post it as an alt? Wolftick (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the caution- I'm sure we all appreciate it! It would be valuable if you could post this as an alt so that the alternatives can be compared side-by-side. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have stitched together a substantially higher resolution and more detailed version from the image viewer on source. I'm fairly new to this: Assuming this is okay, should I upload as a new version of the file or post it as an alt? Wolftick (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Thanks, Wolfie. Wonder though, if the original doesn't got the right colors, though. The work is rather tiny, it is 33 × 23 cm (13 × 9.1 in) - so the resolution of the original scan might be just enough...(2,123 × 3,000 pixels, file size: 4.04 MB) -- [thinking about and because of the colour question]... Hafspajen (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- People have a tendency to just crank up the saturation and contrast on artworks, reality be damned. We know this, although given Crisco's the one uploading, perhaps they just restored it recently by removing a varnish layer. In any case, we should go with the more recent scan by the gallery. Oppose original. Will need to check the alt over for stitching errors. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- It's impossible to tell for sure without seeing in person but alt feels right to me, in the same way original felt wrong. I think the yellows are the main tell-tale.
- With regards to resolution, as long as it reveals more detail my inclination is to go with as much as available in preference to minimising file size. Not sure if people follow? In this case alt is approximately 600PPI which doesn't feel over the top for this work.
- The stitching was a simple case of manually aligning per pixel 3 parts split vertically (top, middle and bottom sections), but I would agree that checking would be good in case I made any errors. - Wolftick (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- I can confirm that the NatGal scan is very yellow (in the downloadable version). I'm currently uploading the newest downloadable version they have. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Support per nom. An interesting rendition of wings and a halo.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Either image is acceptable in my opinion. Editors have this problem all the time selecting images. So long as the images are technically proficient and not gratuitously processed to the uploader's taste or prejudices, there shouldn't be a problem. There was a problem with the accompanying article however, which was a blatant copyright violation of NGA text. That material needs to be rewritten by our esteemed commentators here. 64.9.157.242 (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I could support either version, too. The question is which one comes closer to the original painting. Can this be decided? --Tremonist (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment support either, however if I were to use one in an article, I would use the 1st. Atsme📞📧 13:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - Support either per Tremonist.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Confirming my vote above: I think ALT is better. Yann (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Prefer original - It doesn't have any stitching errors, and since the museum is releasing it for download, it's probably reasonably accurate.. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- I understand if the original is preferred but unless examples can be cited I would assert that there are no stitching errors with the second image. While it was stitched together this was achieved using only 3 overlapping parts of the original whole and thus could be performed manually with per pixel accuracy. - Wolftick (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, left out the word "possible". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- 'Support original - For all the NGA scans here and there - Renaissance paintings and especially Filippino Lippi - ALL of his paintings have CLEAR; LUMINOUS colours. Original is most probably right. Hafspajen (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - I would contend that while less sharp and contrasty in thumbnail the colours in alt are clearer and more luminous in alt. Note in comparison the rosey cheeks and distinction in colour between the face and hair that are present in alt but sadly absent in the original, along with the blue sky that is actually blue rather than grey, the richer green... I could go on. - Wolftick (talk) 12:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Hafspajen and Crisco 1492: The ALT appears to be the scan from the NGA. Where has the original come from? You're stating it's accurate because the original is the one the museum released; that doesn't appear to be true. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- The NGA has both scans available. The one available for download (i.e. the one here) is the one used in the Original above. I've stated this already, above ("I can confirm that the NatGal scan is very yellow (in the downloadable version).") — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- That is just weird. I think, then, we can probably make this supposition: The image has been restored, and the original is before the removal of yellowed varnish? Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Quite possible. Or there was a different white balance. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- If it's simply different white balance, I'd say the original is clearly wrong. It has an oversaturated, overcontrasted effect similar to hitting the "Autolevels" button. That's only acceptable if it reflects reality. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492: Actually, there's a point. You have photoshop, right? Do an autolevels on the alt, and tell me if it comes out like the original? If its basically a bad automated adjustment, we should reject it, and some futzing with autolevels and contrast in GIMP hints it may just be that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Auto tone ends up really blue, actually. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, so both are still in the running. That's good to know, at least. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Auto tone ends up really blue, actually. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492: Actually, there's a point. You have photoshop, right? Do an autolevels on the alt, and tell me if it comes out like the original? If its basically a bad automated adjustment, we should reject it, and some futzing with autolevels and contrast in GIMP hints it may just be that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- If it's simply different white balance, I'd say the original is clearly wrong. It has an oversaturated, overcontrasted effect similar to hitting the "Autolevels" button. That's only acceptable if it reflects reality. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Quite possible. Or there was a different white balance. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- That is just weird. I think, then, we can probably make this supposition: The image has been restored, and the original is before the removal of yellowed varnish? Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- The NGA has both scans available. The one available for download (i.e. the one here) is the one used in the Original above. I've stated this already, above ("I can confirm that the NatGal scan is very yellow (in the downloadable version).") — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - In an attempt to resolve stalemate, I note that Original is now marked as superseded by Alt on Wikipedia. Original is not currently used in any articles and this change has not been reverted for some time (as uploader of Alt I did not make this change). According to FPC criteria this renders original ineligible for FP and as it stands it now becomes a sole question of whether Alt has enough support. - Wolftick (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
This has gone on a month. Only the alt is used in articles, and its usage seems to be stable in them, given it's been a month. Can I suggest we simply promote the alt? Otherwise, I think this has to be failed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- ...I just noticed: I made the change. I had forgotten I did that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- still Prefer Original : Per Chris Woodrich & Hafspajen : DreamSparrow Chat 16:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment - Original is now not used in any articles so cannot be promoted as things stand. Alt is now the version used in articles and by my count just about has the necessary 5 supports if you count slightly tenuous "support either" votes. If things remain like this I would suggest either promote alt or not promoted per didn't reach the necessary quorum. Don't mind which but I think it would be good to clear this up. - Wolftick (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support alt as it is used in articles and meets requirements. sst✈ 11:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- All right, I am taking this. Let's see. In order to gain a perfect consensus, we need more clarity on the votes. So pinging @Crisco 1492, Hafspajen, SSTflyer, Yann, and Mydreamsparrow:@Jobas, Atsme, Charlesjsharp, Wolftick, and Adam Cuerden:@Godsy: Can you please make a more full fledged support on either. (One year away and found you guys have messed up my FPC. What a mess. An nom uncooked for three months. Oh Christ...;-)...) -The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 16:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- At this point, support either. Tendency seems to be towards the alt, so let's go with that. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I support the alt. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support ALT ---Yann (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Closing procedure
A script is available that automates the majority of these tasks: User:Jujutacular/closeFPC
When NOT promoted, perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
- {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~
-
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
-
- {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~
- Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} to the top of the section.
- Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the March archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
- If the nominator is new to FPC, consider placing {{subst:NotpromotedFPC|Image name}} on their talk page. To avoid overuse, do not use the template when in doubt.
- If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.
When promoted, perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
- {{FPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~
-
- Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:
-
- Promoted File:FILENAME.JPG
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
-
- {{FPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~
- Add the image to:
- Template:Announcements/New featured content - newest on top, remove the oldest so that 15 are listed at all times.
- Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom.
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top.
- Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on top.
- The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Creator". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the creator does not have an article, use an external link if appropriate. For images with substantial editing by one or more Wikipedians, but created by someone else, use "Description at Article, by Creator (edited by Editor)" (all editors involved should be clear from the nomination). Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Creator". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.
- Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.
- Add the Featured Picture tag and star to the image page using {{Featured picture|page_name}} (replace page_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the page_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/page_name). To add this template you most likely will have to click the "create" button on the upper right if the "edit" button is not present, generally if the image originates from Commons.
- If an edited or alternative version of the originally nominated image is promoted, make sure that all articles contain the Featured Picture version, as opposed to the original.
- Notify the nominator or co-nominators by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:file_name.xxx}} on each nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
- If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|File:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
- Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} to the top of the section.
- Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the March archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
- If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.
Delist closing procedure
Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article/s.
If consensus is to KEEP featured picture status, and the image is used in at least one article, perform the following:
- Check that the image has been in the article for at least one week. Otherwise, suspend the nomination to give it time to stabilize before continuing.
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
- {{FPCresult|Kept|}} --~~~~
-
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
-
- {{FPCresult|Kept|}} --~~~~
- Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
- Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the archived delist nominations. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the bottom of the Retained section of the archive.
- Optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page.
If consensus is to DELIST, or the image is unused (and consensus is not for a replacement that is used), perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
- {{FPCresult|Delisted|}} --~~~~
-
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
-
- {{FPCresult|Delisted|}} --~~~~
- Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
- Remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.
- Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
- Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the archived delist nominations. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} page to the bottom of the Delisted section of the archive.
If consensus is to REPLACE (and at least one of the images is used in articles), perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
- {{FPCresult|Replaced|}} with File:NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG --~~~~
-
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Replace NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG with the name of the replacement file.
-
- {{FPCresult|Replaced|}} with File:NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG --~~~~
- Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the delisted image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
- Update the replacement picture's tag, adding the tag {{Featured picture|delist/image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/image_name). Remove any no longer applicable tags from the original, replacement and from any other alternatives. If the alternatives were on Commons and no longer have any tags, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
- Replace the delisted Featured Picture in all articles with the new replacement Featured Picture version. Do NOT replace the original in non-article space, such as Talk Pages, FPC nominations, archives, etc.
- Ensure that the replacement image is included on the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs. Do this by replacing the original image with the new replacement image; do not add the replacement as a new Featured Picture.
- Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
- Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the archived delist nominations. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the bottom of the Replaced section of the archive.
Recently closed nominations
Nominations in this category have already been closed and are here for the purposes of closure review by FPC contributors. Please do not add any further comments or votes regarding the original nomination. If you wish to discuss any of these closures, please do so at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. Nominations will stay here for three full days following closure and subsequently be removed.
Frontispiece to The Pinafore Picture Book
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2016 at 02:25:27 (UTC)
- Reason
- One of the most important late works by W. S. Gilbert, this expanded retelling of H.M.S. Pinafore for children teaches them such things as how one goes about singing a song to the moon (Step one: During the
intermissionevening, stay in your cabin composing it on your guitar...) It's a very fun read, and, while we currently lack an article on the book itself, this image is used to represent it in H.M.S. Pinafore and Gilbert and Sullivan - Articles in which this image appears
- H.M.S. Pinafore and Gilbert and Sullivan
- FP category for this image
- WP:Featured pictures/Artwork/Literary illustrations
- Creator
- Alice B. Woodward prepared and restored by Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Too much of original white border has been cropped, I think. Brandmeistertalk 15:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Brandmeister: It's from a book and the captions are printed on separate pages; I don't think the borders don't really add any significant value here beyond needing a CSS crop. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think it might give a false impression about the borders to an average user (technically they are still part of the page), but wouldn't oppose on that basis. Brandmeistertalk 19:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- At least this is done consistently, rather than leaving two sides uncropped... — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- At least I can blame Google in that case :) Brandmeistertalk 15:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- At least this is done consistently, rather than leaving two sides uncropped... — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think it might give a false impression about the borders to an average user (technically they are still part of the page), but wouldn't oppose on that basis. Brandmeistertalk 19:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Brandmeister: It's from a book and the captions are printed on separate pages; I don't think the borders don't really add any significant value here beyond needing a CSS crop. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Jobas (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nomination didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
View of Pyramid Peak from Aspen Highlands
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2016 at 15:36:35 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality image depicting the North face of the Mountain
- Target article
- Pyramid Peak (Colorado), Aspen Highlands
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures#Places
- Creator
- Moroder
-
- Target article? Sca (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Aspen Highlands thanks for the hint --Moroder (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Target article? Sca (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – Fine composition. Alas, detail seems rather fuzzy at full res. Sca (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Jobas (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose as I could see too much noise in it. The distractions like the dry tree, surrounding peaks do hinder the view. A nice shoot but not just fine for a FP. See Here for getting some which I would have picked up.-The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see any picture of the Pyramid peak among Your Special Pictures --Moroder (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's not what Herald was saying. Composition-wise, there is much room for improvement. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see any picture of the Pyramid peak among Your Special Pictures --Moroder (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Unsharp, and tree branch is distracting. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 15:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The First National Bank of Hawaii ($10 Series 1882BB)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2016 at 23:55:24 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality, high EV
- Articles in which these images appear
- U.S. national banks of Hawaii, Cecil Brown (Hawaii politician)...currently a GAN..., and National Bank Note
- FP category for this image
- Currency/American currency
- Creator
- Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing
Image by Godot13
- Support as nominator – Godot13 (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – The obverse includes what appears to be an image of a repeat of Franklin's kite experiment (and a flying topless lady at right), and I'm wondering what that has to with Hawaii. Sca (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Good question Sca- The design of National Bank Notes was uniform with the exception of the section of lettering on the front identifying the name of the bank and its location (sometimes called the "tombstone") and the charter number engraved in the border (and in large numbers across the center reverse). For most states and some territories the reverse side left oval contained the state or territorial coat of arms. Since Hawaii was annexed in 1898 and the 1882 series in essence ended in 1902, an official territorial coat of arms was never added. (Idaho, for example, stated issuing in the 1860s and there are two versions of the territorial seal). The remaining territories (like Hawaii) simply had two versions of the eagle in the ovals. Hope that helps...--Godot13 (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Support – Still puzzled. But, well, it's different. Colors seem somewhat reminiscent of some Confederate notes. Sca (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- The purpose of having all the notes with the same basic design was familiarity and recognition. They were backed by the Treasury and were legal tender in any state or territory. The early vignettes were meant to be "educational" in nature (particularly the reverse).--Godot13 (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support, also it's not that often you can see bare breasts on banknotes... Brandmeistertalk 19:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- ... At least,not that are supposed to be there.Once I've got my hands on them with my little marker pen,it's a different story.... Lemon martini (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Promoted File:US-NBN-HI-Honolulu-5550-1882BB-10-1-B.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 00:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The Chocolate Girl
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2016 at 18:43:11 (UTC)
- Reason
- We don't have Liotard featured yet. Still, many like chocolate, especially when served by young maids...
- Articles in which this image appears
- The Chocolate Girl, Jean-Étienne Liotard
- FP category for this image
- Paintings
- Creator
- Jean-Étienne Liotard
- Support as nominator – Brandmeistertalk 18:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - It's good quality. I'm just wondering if whould we have the bottom edge cropped out a bit. What do you think? Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- The edge isn't straight, so I think part of the painting would be chopped off during crop. Maybe there's another way... Brandmeistertalk 21:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's why, when I copied images from the MET, I always kept a black border, to keep the canvas from looking artificially straight... Shame Google doesn't have the other three edges online. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't mind having a small bit of the painting cropped just to even it out. But is it such a crime to do so under FP standards? Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, WP:WIAFP advises against "deceptive", "inappropriate" and "any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented". Brandmeistertalk 09:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Problem being that the other sides have already been cropped like that... — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, WP:WIAFP advises against "deceptive", "inappropriate" and "any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented". Brandmeistertalk 09:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't mind having a small bit of the painting cropped just to even it out. But is it such a crime to do so under FP standards? Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's why, when I copied images from the MET, I always kept a black border, to keep the canvas from looking artificially straight... Shame Google doesn't have the other three edges online. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- The edge isn't straight, so I think part of the painting would be chopped off during crop. Maybe there's another way... Brandmeistertalk 21:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Suspended nominations
This section is for Featured Picture (or delisting) candidacies whose closure is postponed for additional editing, rendering, or copyright clarification.