I'm aware of the practice. The article doesn't discuss why tinting was used in this particular instance, and the purple seems quite vibrant (especially contrasted with the B&W) — Chris Woodrich (talk)14:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a language of early film we don't have anymore. It's probably meant to emphasise the femininity of her dressing room or something. It's cruder, but not much weirder than those extreme orange/blue palettes that were huge 10 years ago and will look odd in twenty years.Support as it's a very high resolution copy, very sharp, very good, and it's in an article about itself.Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of allFPs.06:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that as well. Figured, since the FFD would close after it became PD, no point. Especially since we could always transwiki it to EN-Wiki for the... ten days it'll take. — Chris Woodrich (talk)19:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on2 Jan 2025 at19:26:37 (UTC)
Original – Singer-songwriter Jewel performing in Concord, California in 2022.
Reason
I know concert photos are hit-or-miss, but I've listened to a fair amount of Jewel and I think this is an excellent depiction of the overall attitude she brings to music. It's a shame her left hand is out of frame, but I think the expressiveness still comes through strongly.
Comment – Her face is out of focus (doesn't look like motion blur). I think the focal plane is in front, at her elbow. Sometimes a high pixel count makes up for softness issues, but the pixel count isn't that high in this case.Bammesk (talk)18:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Agree with Bammesk. This is slightly soft on the face. It's quite competent, overall, but between the low resolution and missed focus I'm not sure. — Chris Woodrich (talk)16:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on16 Dec 2024 at18:58:39 (UTC)
Original –Lower Manhattan seen in an aerial shot inAugust July 2001,a two months before the terrorist attacks ofSeptember 11, 2001.Alt 1 – Restored and fixed perspective distortionAlt 2 – Blue tint corrected
Reason
Gorgeous image of Lower Manhattan,a two months beforeit no longer looked like this. Image is large as well, and I only noted small distortion on a few buildings at the edges of the picture, all the rest are straight from what I've seen. High EV as it depicts a building complex with it's surroundings, justa two months before theyleft us. Amazing image overall, especially for 2001.May need slight clean-up, I did notice dust at the top.
I addedAlt 1, restored it and fixed the perspective/lens distortion (it was visible at far left and far right). And added the image to theWorld Trade Center (1973–2001) article. BTW, the date of the photo is July 2001. I verified it in Highsmith's book (per User:Blameless), and added a note on the file page, the book says "two months before" the attacks. Pinging participants@EF5,Janke,Moonreach, andVulcanSphere:,@Blameless:.Bammesk (talk)18:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Armbrust, you might want to keep this nom open for another week. I might get a chance to improve "Alt 1" and address the other issues as well, which were noted in the Commons FP nom.Bammesk (talk)03:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did more restoration onAlt 1. Edited tint, colors, brightness, vignetting, and sky noise/artifacts. These were critiqued in theCommons FP nom. FYI, the adjustments are made based on the time of day (per the shadows) which indicate a July mid-late afternoon clear-sunny day. Pinging participants who voted support, please indicate a preference for either "Alt 1" or "Alt 2" so we can close this nom.@EF5,Moonreach,VulcanSphere,Crisco 1492,PetarM,Hamid Hassani,Yann, andArmbrust:.Bammesk (talk)17:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alt 2, Alt 1 has weird color imbalances from the vignette correction. Also, please don't ping me about this discussion any more. I'm not that invested in it.Moonreach (talk)20:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5:, try it again. I just fixed a thumbnail color profile error. See it atThis link, because smaller thumbnails might still display exaggerated colors/brightness (because it takes some time for servers to react). You can also click on the image several times to see it at full screen or full size.Bammesk (talk)18:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still tend tosupport Alt 2. As I see, the colors seem brighter and clearer, and, e.g, the surface of the water and to some extent the sky also look more natural. –Hamid Hassani (talk)03:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Alt 1 looks much better now, so I don't oppose it anymore, but I still have a slight preference forAlt 2, as mentioned by others above.Yann (talk)10:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but this is very untrue. The lion was only between 7 and 9 years old when the picture was taken (2020) which is not a "very old lion" as you pretend.
Also, in my opinion the picture you linked is of much lower encyclopedic value then the actual one because : 1) the photo you linked is of much lower resolution ; 2) the lion in the photo you linked is facing away (second eye almost not visible, half the face missing).
Your own vote plus one other on a talk page that few visit isnot a consensus. Wikipedia doesnot require a consensus to replace an image in an article.Charlesjsharp (talk)15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged the user who told me to bring that subject to the talk page and he didn't oppose once he saw all arguments in favor. Another user also supported. The edit was performed after over 3 weeks after the discussion was started to let any eventual oppose speak. There were only supports and no oppose in that deadline. Like it or not, that is a consensus. If wikipedia doesn't require consensus to edit featured articles then I don't see why you tried to make a story out of it with your first message. --Giles Laurent (talk)16:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was between 10 and 13 according to the Washington Post when he died so he was between 7 and 10 when photographed. You're now referring to lion prime and mane. According to your own article this lion was on his prime since his mane is extremely impressive (much more then the picture you linked in my opinion : color, length, thickness and overall mane appearance) and this would also mean that the age would be between 6 and 8 according to your article --Giles Laurent (talk)22:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp andGiles Laurent: If I might put in my opinion - and you can agree or disagree as you see fit:
First of all, let's look at the before and after images:
The replaced image wasFile:Lion_waiting_in_Namibia.jpg. This image has a good thumbnail, arguably slightly better æsthetics than Giles' image, but objectively, is blurry - even though it's somewhat low resolution - and is nowhere near FP quality.
Giles' image, on technical grounds, is excellent. Sharp, well-lit, good composition, high resolution. It does seem to be a slightly shaggy-maned, older lion.
Now, let's ask some questions about what the lead image should do:
It should draw people into the article. This can be by identifying the subject, looking good, or a lot of other ways. For most articles, it should be an initial introduction to the subject, but few subjects are narrow enough to have one image fully cover them, and some - certain mathematical subjects with unclear discoverers, say - may not be able to have a particularly compelling or relevant illustration at all.
It's good to start with a high-quality image, so people looking for images of a subject will be encouraged to check out the other images in the article. This is a lesser criteria.
And what it doesn't need to do:
The first image doesn't have to be the most iconic one. We don't startMargaret Hamilton (actress) with her dressed as the Wicked Witch of the West; the heavy makeup distorts too much, and she did a lot of other things. It can be helpful to slightly challenge an over-simplistic view of a subject early. There's a lot of latitude here.
It doesn't have to do everything. There's a reason we don't limit images to one or two per article.
And, while not relevant here, I don't think that the lead image is the only one that can be featured. That just discourages improving the images not in the lead.
----
I'd say that, taken in totality with all the images in the article, the older lion is... a type of lion worth seeing in the article. We want to see avariety of images in the article, otherwise, some are redundant. For example, a lead image forCat doesn't need to include ginger, tabbies, calico, black, white, long haired, short haired, sphinx, and every other sort of cat out there, but the article as a whole should try to show the variety. Here, we'd reasonably want a few angles, both genders, and a few ages, and a bunch of behaviours. I'd say the article has a decent variety as it stands.
Hence, I'm votingSupport. But I think you're having a dispute over what's the ideal lead image - which there is some reason to do: we don't want the image to disappear from the article in the months before it mainpages, and a poorly-positioned image is more likely to do that. I don't think an older lion is necessarily bad, but that's a judgement call, and I'm not sure that's going to be something that you two are going to agree on, because it's a very subjective point.Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of allFPs.06:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the width is only just over 1,000 px, I think that's more to do with the aspect ratio. It's still 2 megapixels, and, having got it as part of a collaboration with the museum, I don't think it's likely to get better anytime soon
Chris, the copyright tag covers US, no? Says "is in the public domain both in Brazil and in the United States". I am fine with the composition, and pixel count (per historic exception), if the copyright is PD.Bammesk (talk)17:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the tag covers the URAA situation better than any new tag could. I presume, given the Brazilian National Archive has declared it public domain, that it's considered a non-artistic photographic portrait - and the composition with his crossed leg at the bottom, a background that looks like auditorium seating, and so on, kind of leans into that explanation.Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of allFPs.17:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) You're right. Still not quite sure I think the composition is up to snuff, especially since the aspect ratio isn't quite something I'd expect for a historical image. — Chris Woodrich (talk)17:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the aspect ratio, I am pretty sure the negative covered more area, and the print crops the sides (perhaps other people were seated there or etc.). It's an unusual crop, but sometimes that's interesting though. The crop kind of matches his expression, I think.Bammesk (talk)18:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – taking an exception to the pixel count requirement, with this being somewhat of an old/historic photo. On a sidenote, he was born in 1922, so my guess is the photo dates to early 1960s or so.Bammesk (talk)18:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on4 Jan 2025 at18:03:05 (UTC)
Original – A World War I United States Army recruitment poster featuring a half-length portrait of Uncle Sam pointing at the viewer, with the legend "I want you for U.S. Army".
Reason
Previously nominatedhere, the picture went through some issues that were unsorted, such as replacing the photo nominated with this one. Nonetheless, this image is still very historically important and high quality, and is one of the most
I need to talk this one through: On the one hand, this was originally a photographic plate, so the limit of detail is somewhere a little smaller than the film grain size (since the film grains don't form a grid, so the conversion to grid is going to eat detail if it's too close to film grain size).
It's not sharp, but I'm not sure if that's JPEG artefacting, resolution, or just that X-ray diffraction isn't a photograph of a straight line.
It's relatively small dimensions (858 × 858) which might be reasonable if this is a tiny spot on a photographic plate, or might be horrible. I don't know.Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of allFPs.21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's also the case we should nominate the best copy possible. There are numerous other copies of Photo 51 online, some much bigger, so we need to judge which is best.Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of allFPs.04:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Because a photo in an article is supposed to add value on its own. This doesn't. It only makes any sense after you read about it. For me, that is the wrong way round. Also, it adds little value to DNA article and isn't included in double helix article,Why? I Ask.Charlesjsharp (talk)10:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: That is an incredibly stupid reason. If something is described as the most important photo by many medical journals, newspapers, and books, it certainly has great encyclopedic value. (I did a basic search and found no less thanforty sources calling it such.) Hell, it even has aplay about it. And isn't one of the criteria literallyit illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more?Why? I Ask (talk)19:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to be rudeWhy? I Ask. I may be old but I am not stupid. And even if I was, you shouldn't insult me. I read Watson'sThe Double Helix when it was published in 1968. The FP criteria you quote is spot on and I know it well. The image doesnot illustrate the subject in a compelling way. It doesnot make the viewer want to know more. QED.Charlesjsharp (talk)12:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say you were stupid. You're clearly a very talented photographer based on your page. I said it was a stupid reason, and I stand by that. It meets all the criteria laid out. The fact that it is aesthetically dull is explicitly not a reason to oppose: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. As I have said, it is highly historical.Why? I Ask (talk)12:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp andSca: To explain this: this is a method of analyzing protein shapes that was vitally important to working out the structure of DNA; it's included in any decent history of science book covering the subject. Interpretation is a very specialised skill, though there are resources that will explain it to you.
The nom version is not a good copy, it is a blurred version of the originalHere andHere. The second link says there is a 1500 x 1644 pixel available. I would support if a non-blurred version of the original is nominated. I disagree with the EV comments/votes above.Bammesk (talk)19:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Why? I Ask, I am leaning to support. Is there a source link for the latest upload? Could you put the link on the image page please. If not, then perhaps a home-page link to King's College Archives or something like that (pointing to where the image came from).Bammesk (talk)04:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The above votes "I don't get it" and "not readily intelligible to viewers" do not hold any merit. This is described by the BBC as a candidate for themost important photo ever. I have uploaded a higher-quality edition from the King's College London Archives as well.Why? I Ask (talk)03:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quality lead image, represents the subject of the article well. Has been a stable lead image for 5 years. By notable photographerJack Delano. FP on Commons.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on14 Jan 2025 at19:36:07 (UTC)
Original – Significant damage to Crosspoint Christian Daycare from the tornado, where 70 children survived the tornado
Reason
High-quality image (3,264 × 2,448) that has solid EV. The structure and damage seen here is directly mentioned in the article (Tornado outbreak of January 12, 2023#Selma, Alabama): “Reaching high-end EF2 strength, the tornado struck the Crosspoint Christian Daycare along Cooper Drive, inflicting severe structural damage to the building, which sustained collapse of its roof and several brick exterior walls. At the time of the tornado, 70 children were inside the daycare along with staff workers. One baby received a minor cut from the tornado, with no other injuries occurring at that location.” Seeing the damage itself is solid EV. Passes all criteria points.
If I may askCharlesjsharp, could you explain how the image does not really add value to the article? Maybe the image should be changed in the article if you feel it is not valuable, hence why I’m asking if you could explain it a little more.TheWeather Event Writer (Talk Page)20:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I just Googled selma tornado and many more interesting images showed up, some of EF3 damage. There are more interesting images of the EF2 Daycare damage too.Charlesjsharp (talk)20:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Googled images are not free-to-use images. This is the only free-to-use damage photo of the daycare as it was taken by the U.S. government. Do you have any other more interestingfree-to-use photos that are better and more interesting to the article? Given there is a free-to-use photo, absolutely no non-free media is allowed of the daycare (perWP:NFCCP criteria 1). So, that does bring up the question on if there is actually any other free media that would be “more interesting” or more valuable to the article, or is this image, indeed, the most valuable damage photograph, since it is free-to-use? Also a P.S., the tornado itself was rated EF2, so any EF3 damage is not this tornado and is some other tornado/other article.TheWeather Event Writer (Talk Page)20:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment iPad photo of rather low resolution (only 3,264 × 2,448 pixels). Dull light. Quality issues involving artifacts at the Bottom and low level of detail. Noisy sky. Damaged building but not so different from a house being demolished in some construction site. --Basile Morin (talk)02:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw – perWP:SNOW. Clear this image will not pass FPC, with the sole opposition reasonings being (1) not valuable to the article and (2) better non-free images exist. F me, no wonder tornado damage photos can’t easily be FPs…TheWeather Event Writer (Talk Page)02:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on5 Jan 2025 at14:42:02 (UTC)
Original – A late 16th/early 17th-centurypipa made of wood, ivory, bone, and silk. This traditional Chinese musical instrument has a pear-shaped wooden body with a varying number of frets. It is played by plucking the strings.
Reason
High quality image that shows the important features of the musical instrument. Professionally shot.
It's quite a nice image of her in a character role without heavy makeup (She's most famous as the Wicked Witch of the West fromThe Wizard of Oz). While not the first image in the article, it probably could be, and, while I don't think this Sid-and-Marty-Krofft production is that famous nowadays, it was a pretty major role. I haven't waited seven days; I don't think it's a controversial addition, and the article was hardly over-illustrated, nor is it incredibly active (averages about an edit a week over the last year, though that's inflated by the cases where one editor makes 3-5 small edits over a few minutes)
Excellent addition to the article. One of the oldest panoramas of its kind, it dates to 1848. FP on Commons. High resolution 59000 x 4300 pixels. To open it you can use ZoomViewer on the file page. Description from the file page is: "Panorama of 2 miles of the riverfront of Cincinnati, Ohio, consisting of 8 full plate daguerreotypes. Taken from a rooftop in Newport, Kentucky. It is the largest daguerreotype scene of its age, and the oldest surviving example of a North American cityscape." This set is a historic artifact in its own right. I don't think a restoration is necessary or adds much to the EV. The set was edited by User:LucaLindholm who adjusted the color tone of some frames (and maybe the brightness too, I am not sure).
Comment - Very strange, staggered rectangular density variations, most notable in the sky. Are they in the original? (File page links are 404...) --Janke |Talk10:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the rectangular grid-like-shades!! It can't be on the daguerreotypes, but it is on the scans (original scans). Checkthe source link, I don't get a 404, it opens fine. There are a bunch of other source links listed on the file page under "Other versions". Some of those are live links. I don't remember where but I read these were enlarged optically first and then scanned (to get the maximum details registered). Maybe the rectangular grid is an artifact of that process! Unfortunately the original uploaderHere has cropped out the top part of the sky (about the top 10-15%). I missed that too! I am not sure the crop was a good idea. I am going to withdraw this nom, and look into the grid and the crop. I doubt I be re-nominating it, but I might. I will keep the nom open for a couple of days in case there is more feedback.Bammesk (talk)01:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose — I love this in principle but there's just too much wrong with it, more than I think a restoration can fix. The plates aren't aligned, there are the "rectangular density variations", large portions of the individual images are out of focus, vignette effect, possible staining, and of course the usual dust and scratches. Any attempt to correct all of these would require a huge amount of guesswork from the restorer, more than I think is possible without crossing the line into inappropriate digital manipulation. I'd rather just leave this image as it is and simply accept that it's not feature-worthy.Moonreach (talk)16:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you know we don't judge historic images with the same standards we use on other images. especially mid-1800s images. You are entitled to your opinion. As I wrote in the reason section "This set is a historic artifact in its own right. I don't think a restoration is necessary or adds much to the EV." Obviously we disagree on whether it's feature-worthy or not, on that count. And that's fine. However, given my reply to Janke above, this may well not be feature-worthy.Bammesk (talk)01:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my oppose on Commons 3 minutes ago. In summary, big problem of perspective, which gives the impression that all the buildings are collapsing, while in fact there is only one in the center. I am currently working on a derivative version of this file to fix the issue. In addition to this major problem of perspective, the sky is horribly dotted with many dust spots, very visible at full size. --Basile Morin (talk)11:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Only 2 days left. Too late now, in my opinion, to make people vote for an alternative. Especially since the image already being voted on on Wikimedia Commons, risks being further modified or improved, and therefore causing problems here. --Basile Morin (talk)01:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One might have doubts about this image due to the extreme contrast, but surely a major rock band passes the encyclopedic value check, Sca? There's plenty of reasons to oppose, but the encyclopedic value of a household-name rock band isn't one.Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of allFPs.18:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A fine image - that crinoline dress was a nightmare to clean the dust from, but worth it, I think - taken reasonably close to the time of their 1862 wedding to each other. 1862 is relatively early photography, so I'd say this is pretty good for the era.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on18 Jan 2025 at17:34:38 (UTC)
Edited – Former President Jimmy Carter shown during a Google Hangout session held during the LBJ Presidential Library Civil Rights Summit on Tuesday, April 8, 2014, in Austin, Texas.Original (uncropped)
Comment I notify other voters that this user has been banned on Commons and has been insulting on this page towards another user (see previous nominations below)Charlesjsharp (talk)19:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per my vote on Commons. Extraordinary panning, making the subject popping up from the background. Impressive settings, at 1/60 sec only, for a moving subject located far away. The plane is surprisingly sharp. --Basile Morin (talk)01:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Hadn't noticed that. Don't know if that's intentional, or just one of those "we could fix it, but we'd have to remake the plates... does it really matter?" things.Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of allFPs.17:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on11 Jan 2025 at22:18:12 (UTC)
Original – The only photographic documentation ofJimmy Carter's encounter with a swimming rabbit,an incident that led to significant press debate in 1979.
Reason
Picture it: Plains, Georgia, 1979. You're president, and you want to take a bit of time to relax. Suddenly, out of nowhere, you're beset upon by a rabbit. You shoo it away with a paddle, but your photographer got a shot. You decide to tell it as a funny story, and word gets out, and all of a sudden you're being presented as off your rocker. You decide not to publicize the only picture of the incident, but your successor decides to have fun with it. That is theJimmy Carter rabbit incident, and now to talk about the criteria: high resolution digital quality of an image that never was officially released. It shows its age, to be sure; some highlights are blown, with the camera unable to handle the darkness of the forest and the bright light on carter. But it is a unique historical document, which I believe excuses the technical shortcomings.
Weak support: If the reproduction is as good as possible, I kind of have to agrree with Chris that this is the best image for the article. But it doesn't tell that much.Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of allFPs.10:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think another image of Carter during his presidency or even his post presidency doing something more significant than a simple story that can even be about him installing solar panels on the White House. This picture also has its technical issues and tells a story that makes him look badWcamp9 (talk)23:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good example of the impact of the2023 Canadian wildfires. This was a common scene in large parts of Canada and US. Good addition to the article. This is a drone shot and this was a one-time event, so I think the lens distortion and the noise is forgivable.
Weak oppose, due to usage: I think there's merit to this image, but its usage isn't really enough in my view. First of all, there's no mention of Quebec City or Old Quebec outside of the caption. The article says "On the afternoon of June 25, Montreal had the worst air quality in the world due to wildfire smoke in the region; several cultural and sporting events were cancelled or postponed in response." - so, if this was Montreal, it'd be clearly valuable, but as it stands, it's just not really contextualised enough. There's probably ways to use it in the article that would justify support, but, as it is, it's a really good smoke pic without much context.Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of allFPs.23:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree if this was a local event, but this covered entire Canadian territories for a month (longer in some areas). That section is about Quebec, the territory, and Quebec City is its capital. That should be sufficient, I think. Also, the photo shows a sizable portion ofthe old port which at one time (early 19 century) was the economic heart of the country (its "sea gate" so to speak), so there is some value in that as well.
I looked into replacing one of the infobox images, but not a good idea IMO, because the 3 photos there represent a wide geographic triangle (east, west, north), and the themes are a metro area, a wilderness area, and a burnt down town. That's a proper set I think.Bammesk (talk)04:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is: The orange pollution-fog, particularly the dense low visibility fog, with visibility of a mile or so, is characteristic of what people (who lived through this) experienced, and what they associate with the 2023 fires. The nom photo shows it well. . . . . . Longer answer: Photos like[1] and[2] are similar to typical fog and fire damage, therefore not good candidates. This was a Canadian fire, so a photo in Canada is due. We can do a second nom for U.S. impact too. A satellite photo can also be nominated, but currently none of the images are appealing or sharp. I didn't nominatethis infobox photo because it looks underexposed (the sun is in the frame and it probably threw off the exposure) and the visibility is certainly more than a mile (pollution not so dense).Bammesk (talk)00:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on13 Jan 2025 at01:32:07 (UTC)
Original – The tornado in Andover, Kansas, in front of the Andover City Hall.
Reason
Reasons: Outstanding, rare public domain up-close 4:41 video of an intense tornado (2022 Andover tornado). The video itself meets every criteria pointexcept the second criteria point (minimum size), as the video is 2,304 × 1,440, just barely shy of the 1,500 x 1,500 minimum. This is being uploaded as an exception, which is allowed for unique or historical things on a case-by-case basis.The last minute of this video is by far some of the best tornado footage of the decade, and certainly the best footage on Wikipedia to date (noting the Commons has only 23 videos of tornadoes inCategory:Videos of tornadoes). This video hasextremely high EV, used on the main page itself on December 23 (Wikipedia:Main Page history/2024 December 23).
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on13 Jan 2025 at03:22:42 (UTC)
Original – Four simultaneously active tropical cyclones on November 11, 2024. From left to right: TyphoonsYinxing,Toraji,Usagi, andMan-yi, the first occurrence since 1951
Reason
High-quality image of four simultaneous Pacific typhoons, which became the first recorded instance since 1951 of four tropical cyclones coexisting in November
Support – The image is used in the individual typhoon articles as well, I added them to the article list above. There are imaging scan anomalies at the bottom of the image, but that's just how the image was captured.Bammesk (talk)16:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a centered version of the original one. Not a major change. Is that a final rule in this case? Can a/this replacing be considered as an adding?ArionStar (talk)01:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
N Please restore the previous version onIslam too (nomination already modified). The derivative work suffers fromJPG compression. Only 5.76 MB (for a minor crop) while the original weighs 8.46 MB. The embedded profile has also been changed by the sockpuppet / uploaderAliphotographypretending to be the author. It is now "Display P3" instead of standard "sRGB IEC61966-2.1" in the original version. I think this file should bedelisted and replaced on Commons with a valid (and separate) upload. --Basile Morin (talk)03:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Armbrust: AS you seem to be the key (very helpful) user monitoring FPC, I consider that all Wikis should abide by the same code of ethics; so a ban on Commons concerning featured images should surely be respected here; quite apart from the attacks on Basile which should not go unoticed by any Admin active here.Charlesjsharp (talk)10:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: I don't think that enough users would agree with you on that point. (Especially as Commons doesn't even has a banning policy.) If you think their behaviour is disruptive enough then you can initiate anWP:AN discussion about it, and can seek appropriate sanctions against them.ArmbrustTheHomunculus05:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely high EV and for a World War II photo, is really high resolution (6,404 × 4,543 pixels). The EV alone for this photograph is outstanding. This is probably one of the most famous and well-used photographs of World War II in history.
Oppose - I myself was thinking about nominating this a while back, but seeing the streaks on the right side of the photo, I refrained.EF516:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While not often, if ever, performed nowadays, Gilbert and Sullivan have assured that the history of the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company is of sufficiently massive academic interest that pretty much anything put on by them is the subject of heavy discussion. This is one of the operas that marks the transition between comic opera and musical comedy - it's the only Savoy Opera that has a male role played by a woman, for instance. I think the art's nice, albeit a lot of it is that striking shape looming out of the colour.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on13 Jan 2025 at20:51:11 (UTC)
Original –Poor Cinderella, a 1934 cartoon short that depicted Betty Boop in color for the first time.
Reason
Excellent EV for its article; additionally, several stills extracted from the film have been used elsewhere to illustrate other things (such asCinecolor, the bipack color process used in the short).
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on13 Jan 2025 at22:22:05 (UTC)
Original – Blood stains on the clothes of suspectAlbert Marco—captured on aglass-plate negative by aLos Angeles Times news photographer at theVenice police station the morning after a shooting at theShip Cafe—suggest the nature of Marco's alleged crimes, and illustrate the brutality of the Los Angeles underworld of the 1920s and 1930sRestoration byAdam Cuerden
Reason
Documentary photo depicting the real-world origins offilm noir's compelling black-and-white aesthetic and fairly clear evidence of recent violence of some nature; more specifically this image just stops me in my tracks every time I encounter it again; pretty sure it was never published by theTimes but it was surfaced by UCLA archivists after theTimes donated their photo morgue to UCLA and it has since been published in at least one history of the crime syndicates that ranLos Angeles during the Great Depression era
As a fan of the old-time news business and/or archives I personally adore the hot mess of the name scratched into the negative in cursive and all the now-incomprehensible file numbers, but also I understand that photography and featured photos is its whole own thing. You are a star! I swear I didn't drop this here to trick you into cleaning it up. Albert Marco doesn't deserve you LOL.jengod (talk)04:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wish more than anything the original photographer could see and enjoy your restoration! Thank you that was so thoughtfully done and generous.jengod (talk)08:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not the best at evaluating underwater shots, but there's high wow factor, and I'm trusting the other voters for quality checks.Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of allFPs.04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
High quality large image. Illustrates article well with high EV. FP on Commons. I put it in the infobox but another user reverted my edit. I don’t like the current infobox image.
Weak support I like the shot, but the lighting is just a little... bland. I get it was taken underwater, hence why I'm still supporting.EF517:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. An underwater photo of a 15m whale has to be taken some way away. The physics of light absorption mean that it is always going to look very flat (and blue) compared with underwater close-ups.Charlesjsharp (talk)20:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I get that. Amazing shot though, I think the mother-child duo carries high EV as you can see what that species looks like as a child and as an adult.EF514:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article was vandalized by the same photographer and nominatorlast August with a similar photo of Buddha taken 40 minutes later.
There is of course a high risk of recurrence, because the photographer, whopromised "not to disrupt anymore" has never stopped vandalizing. Now indefinitely blocked on Commons, the same person is continuing with sockpuppets likeAliphotography blocked a few days ago,Green Cabo andThe American Person blocked today.
I don't care you (guys from Commons) think about me at all. You, Basile, are the most confrontational point in the Wiki Universe ever. Lack of mutual appreciation.ArionStar (talk)15:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arion, you literally created two new sockpuppets yesterday so you could nominate four pictures at once and break Commons rules. And this was only days after a previous sockpuppet was banned. You have vandalised Commons FPC with illegitimate accounts and lied about the identity of the sockpuppets when called out on them. You're not succeeding in trying to make Basile, who has broken no rules, into the villain, and it's entirely reasonable for us to point out this behaviour so that a very similar project on another wiki is aware of what they are letting themselves in for in allowing you to participate. Please, find a new hobby to occupy your time.Cmao20 (talk)16:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Armbrust: all pictures hosted on Commons are displayed here on Wikipedia in English (and other languages). Vandalized images make no exception. See for example the history ofFile:Buda de Ibiraçu (B&W).jpg, where you can verify it was vandalized during 6 days, before another user called Koavf reverts. --Basile Morin (talk)00:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless@Armbrust:, I consider that all Wikis should abide by the same code of ethics; so a ban on Commons concerning featured images should surely be respected here; quite apart from the attacks on Basile which should not go unoticed by any Admin active here.Charlesjsharp (talk)10:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Took on an iPhone 15 Pro, who isDEFINITELY not at the standard of featured picture. Looking closely, this image is definitely not fit for being a featured picture due to all the quality issues, against what is described as “high quality”. Sorry, but another one of the lies from you Arion.Wcamp9 (talk)22:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't go into the merits, and I hopeArionStar calms down, but whatBasile Morin said about vandalism is in bad faith and simply false. What vandalism?! The "lang-pt" template was replaced some time ago, so it's obvious that the previous version would be broken. Inthe diff in question, by the way, Arion only removed information that I, the article's creator, later confirmed to be indeed incorrect.RodRabelo7 (talk)07:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Almost all of the few Featured Pictures ArionStar collected have been vandalized (1,2,3,4,5...) This isverifiable and some of these pictures were used in articles (concrete example, used in article "Papaye", the link is written below). This file here was used in the same article (a few weeks earlier in fact, before being replaced by this 2nd version, above), and given the considerable number of various abuses committed by the nominator, I warn that there is a strong chance that the same thing will happen again in the future if this image is promoted. See for example a"picture of the day" on frp-Wikipedia. There you go, now everyone must take their responsibilities. Kind regards. --Basile Morin (talk)07:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not playing this game with blocked userArionStar who seems to have fun using sockpuppets toSPAM my talk page very recently on Commons.
I would be grateful if maintenance workers / administratorsspeedy close this nomination that mayembarrass everyone in case of probable failure, since the photo is not the head image of the article and just a ridiculous provocation. Not sure the rules on Wikipedia allow a "creator" to withdraw someone else's nomination likehere on Commons.
For the record, 3 sockpuppets ofArionStar have been blocked last 5 days on the main image platform for similar provocations.
Thanks, Ambrust, for the clarification on this point. Now if you want my point of view concerning the "encyclopedic value" of this photo, as requested perWP:WIAFP, I honestly believe a worm's-eye view has an artistic value,💡fine for the purposes of Commons but much less an encyclopedic one, suitable for this project. For this subject, the accent of the illustration should be made on a simple / descriptive appearance of the tower. Proportions are totally altered in comparison to the currenthead image of the article. All the best --Basile Morin (talk)06:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that Basile Morin has been involved in the investigation on Commons to help discover ArionStar's massive sockpuppetry, and given that he has been vocal in calling out Arion's behaviour, I would suggest that for Arion to nominate one of Basile's photographs that is likely to fail is a form of taunt or harassment.Cmao20 (talk)12:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on14 Jan 2025 at08:28:22 (UTC)
Original – View of the historic complex ofBesalú,Spain, a fortified medieval village with access by its famous Romanesque bridge shown in the foreground
Reason
Good picture to capture the town's atmosphere. Overall quality is good enough IMO, especially for 2008.
Quality lead image of this comet. This is a composite image, in other words the same scene was shot twice (the comet was tracked, and the foreground was not). See image page for details.
Comment — It's a beautiful shot, but up close there's a distracting stencil effect on the trees where the two parts of the image were composited.Moonreach (talk)16:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've traditionally been pretty against composites of this sort, but they've also usually been much more misleading, not stating they were a composite in advance.Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of allFPs.01:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh I know, composite photos can be misleading and most of the time are unreal. A composite like we have here is for all practical purposes aDouble exposure, in other words shooting the same scene twice in a short time span. A double (or multiple) exposure is not considered a composite, people do it all the time, in the past and at present, for example inFocus stacking, inHigh Dynamic Range photography, etc. We have example FPs both historic and modernhere andhere. EvenThis image is a true multiple exposure (soon to be FP). The nom image isn't any different, it could easily have been called a double exposure. The technique is sometimes necessary and has always been accepted as legit. There is nothing deceptive about it. A composite photo in its common sense is a very different type of photo and/or art. The nom image isn't that.Bammesk (talk)03:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very valuable to the articles it is in, and well done. I would certainly support it after the war ends and is followed by peace. For now it's too much of a reminder (to me) of bloodshed. This is just my personal opinion, not really based on the FP criteria. That's why it's a comment, not a vote. Consider it a "conditional support" for the future (hopefully not the distant future).Bammesk (talk)04:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on15 Jan 2025 at19:07:13 (UTC)
Two violent tornadoes on the ground nearPilger, Nebraska, after killing two people. The left tornado would reach the unofficial highest forward speed ever recorded in a tornado, at 94.6 mph.
Reason
Y'all have probably seen photos of a tornado, maybe even a strong one, but have you ever seen an image oftwo separate large and violent (EF4) tornadoes on the ground at the same time? This image is of the freak of nature that was the2014 Pilger, Nebraska, tornado family. Absolutely amazing public domain image of two deadly tornadoes (each took a life). If that wasn't enough, the leftmost tornado would achieve the unofficial highest forward speed ever recorded in a tornado shortly after this image was taken. While it hasn't been seven days (it's been five since upload), it should be fine as it was to replace a lower-quality image. I think the pure historical value of this should be able to override the weird fence blur on the right side of the image. Currently getting it renamed, but that shouldn't affect the FPC. Both tornadoes looked wildly different, hence the high EV in that not all tornadoes look like a cone.
Comment: Sorry but the quality is just not there. The thumbnail suffers from chromatic aberrations, and at full size there's a clear lack of sharpness. Low level of detail, and the image is noisy with artifacts. The fence is showing motion blur with ghost effect. The subject is impressive, but on a technical level, the picture is not one of the best of the website in my opinion. --Basile Morin (talk)01:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see the motion blur as well. It is very clear on the most right two fence posts (which are nearly duplicated in width due to the motion blur) and in the grass near the right side as well. Photo was most certainly taken from a moving vehicle, which created the motion blur.TheWeather Event Writer (Talk Page)02:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - More than 2x up-sampled from original, doesn't help the quality at all. My guess is that it is taken through a car windshield, which would explain the aberrations. --Janke |Talk09:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Agree with the technical critiques above, but the image size is huge; were it halved in size on both dimensions I don't think we'd see anything more than moderate graininess acceptable for the conditions. The composition is fantastic, and with one-of-a-kind shots I'd argue that's what really matters.Moonreach (talk)16:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This camera records a maximum of 5184 × 3456 pixels, and the photo measures 10,800 × 7,200 pixels, thus it is either a photomontage or more likely heavily upscaled (434 %). I don't think we should encourage this kind of practice. The issues mentioned above are also visible at lower resolution. Interesting picture for documentation (like many others) but not a FP according to thequality criteria. Sorry --Basile Morin (talk)23:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on16 Jan 2025 at14:23:55 (UTC)
Original – The Cocoanuts is a 1929 pre-Code musical comedy film starring the Marx Brothers (Groucho, Harpo, Chico, and Zeppo). Produced for Paramount Pictures by Walter Wanger, who is not credited, the film also stars Mary Eaton, Oscar Shaw, Margaret Dumont and Kay Francis. The first sound film to credit more than one director (Robert Florey and Joseph Santley), it was adapted to the screen by Morrie Ryskind from the George S. Kaufman Broadway musical play. Five of the film's tunes were composed by Irving Berlin, including "When My Dreams Come True", sung by Oscar Shaw and Mary Eaton.
Having watched it all the way through, I think it was cobbled together from at least two separate prints, one of which is markedly worse than the other(s). I remember seeing something similar done withMetropolis years ago in a restoration that added back old cut material that had recently been rediscovered. With that in mind, this probably is the best possible version, at least online.Moonreach (talk)15:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on17 Jan 2025 at21:04:56 (UTC)
Original – This strip shows the first appearance of Popeye in the comic. He is featured with Hamm Gravy and Castor Oyl. Popeye quickly would become the main character.ALT – Better scan, from the Internet Archive. Retouched by Crisco 1492
Good quality scan? It's covered in horizontal lines and is in high-contrast greyscale, and isn't even 1500 px high - which I might waive in the absence of other issues, but makes it very hard to fix those issues.Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of allFPs.07:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notify other voters that the nominator has been banned on Commons and has been insulting on this page towards another user (see previous nominations below)Charlesjsharp (talk)19:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Unfortunately,The Complete E.C. Segar Popeye (1984) removes the copyright notice that was in the original work - it also arranges the panels in a 2-2-1 format, which was found in some newspapers and would allow the existing digital copies to be more than 1500px. I'll keep an eye out for a better scan. As for the behavioural issues... while concerning, I don't think Popeye should suffer for it. — Chris Woodrich (talk)04:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notify other voters that the nominator has been banned on Commons and has been insulting on this page towards another user (see previous nominations below)Charlesjsharp (talk)19:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m going to be honest, is this really needed? It’s irrelevant to the FPC process, and retaliatory opposing is 100% not how it’s done here. Pinging@Chsrlesjsharp: for a response.EF516:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You sound like you want people to oppose because ArionStar's said some questionable things elsewhere, which seems likeWP:HOUNDING.@Armbrust:, how do you feel about this, seeing as you do the majority of FPC promotion work?EF522:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Basile Morin: You realize that doesn't make it okay to follow others around and comment on every nomination they make, right? How would you feel if I commented "this user harasses others" on every single nomination they've ever made. It is completely irrelevant to the process, and you, bluntly, are failing to adhere toWP:FOC.EF513:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two of those are completely unrelated to his Commons conduct and are valid points, while the fourth appears to be a direct result of y'all hounding ArionStar. Others doing something in no way make it right to do. I don't support WikiHounding, no matter who the target is.EF516:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "target" as you imagine, and each of us would like to be able to calmly evaluate new quality nominations as we are supposed to see in this section. Rather than being asphyxiated by an avalanche of weak candidates, all precipitated by the uncontrolled frenzy of a hyper-impulsive participant. Furthermore, no user is obliged to come and provoke conflicts via illegitimate puppets, and even less so if you don't want us to be interested in you. You are"kinda new to the whole FPC process", EF5, according to your own words. Your account has been renamed at least three times in the space of a few months (User:Sir MemeGod,User:WxTrinity,User:MemeGod27...), and you also usealternative accounts. Some of yourrecent nominations are orphans and you're probably not the "author" of thephotos on which you yourself are the subject. Above, you wrongly mention a "retaliatory opposing" when if that had been Charles' intention, he could have voted "oppose per JayCubby" to bring down this nomination even faster. ButCharlesjsharp is usually an excellent reviewer, also a photographer and nominator, regular onWP:FPC andCOM:FPC, withmore than 530 images promoted on Commons and 303 on Wikipedia. I think the idea he expresses is mainly a serious fed-up feeling, to see, once again, a deluge of nominations coming from the same overexcited account. The fact is that ArionStar is here only because he was banned from Commons, unfortunately that is the sad reality. However, the goal is not to repeat here the same mistakes as those made there. Note also that, just afterbeing asked to calm down, ArionStar turns a deaf ear andreiterates, as if he were absolutely seeking his sanction. Obtuse insistence is bound to annoy even the calmest and most patient people. It is obvious that if you want to progress and maintain good relationships with others, you must first be able to become aware of your mistakes, and the reasons for your failures. There is no hunt against ArionStar, but no "special indulgence" either. In my opinion, Charles has mainly tried a kind of moderately subtle "subliminal message" aimed at the participant himself, who would do better to listen once and for all to the good advice, rather than ignoring it and making fun of others. Thisgenerous advice has been offered countless times, well before he was banned. Kind regards --Basile Morin (talk)05:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notify other voters that this user has been banned on Commons and has been insulting on this page towards another user (see previous nominations below)Charlesjsharp (talk)19:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on19 Jan 2025 at01:18:28 (UTC)
Edited – Icona Pop (Aino Jawo, left, and Caroline Hjelt) performing at theWay Out West festival inGothenburg, Sweden, in August 2014Original (uncropped)
It's incredibly misleading to turn sepia images black and white. Itis under-contrasted, and could use a gentle levels adjustment, but the yellowness isn't the problem. 19:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of allFPs.19:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, I will never in my life be as good a restorer as you, this was a light restoration and one of my firsts and it is a little bit bad with its issues but I’ll changed level adjustment and contrastedWcamp9 (talk)20:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go. It's an awkward one colour-wise, so it was kind of hard - I was using layers and levels and such. Kinda low contrast in the face. You did good; the colour side is something that took me a decade to get good-ish at. Or I could just make everything black and white and pretend I'm done, I guess.Support altAdam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of allFPs.07:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I digress, but this is also an issue on the Grover Cleveland talk page as I feel it should be the main image since the other one has technical issues. I don’t know why, but I think we should restore another picture of Grover clevelandWcamp9 (talk)21:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of them is on Wikipedia and used to be the image, while the other is a side profile and if this image can’t be the main image since Cleveland isn’t looking at the camera, I don’t think the other can beWcamp9 (talk)18:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think perspective correction has been applied, which has widened out the center to center-left of the frame. That's overrestoration, to me--for a historical photograph, the goal should be to represent the original image, with restoration removing some of the blemishes of time, not to "improve" on it, as it were. I think I wouldoppose this version, would be interested in a more conservative approach.blameless01:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FP?:"A featured picture: Is of a high technical standard. [...] It shows no significant compression artifacts, burned-out highlights, image noise ("graininess") or other processing anomalies." --Basile Morin (talk)05:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on the above discussions,I, as the nominator, won't support this picture anymore. I want to ask please close the nomination. Thank you! Best,Hamid Hassani (talk)09:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - At first the levels gave me pause, as his forehead appears awfully bright. But given that the source is explicitly the museum that holds the painting, and Fae didn't have a history of digital manipulation, this should be fairly accurate. — Chris Woodrich (talk)00:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a very famous, reputable picture of Galilei. Thanks for nominating the photo of this nearly 400-year portrait of the high-ranking scientist! –Hamid Hassani (talk)03:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on22 Jan 2025 at02:39:46 (UTC)
Original – A portrait of a daguerreotypist displaying daguerreotypes and cases in 1845
pin on his vest
daguerreotype knob
Reason
A daguerrotype of a daguerrotypist, which I personally find to be pretty cool since that was the first widely available photograph method. I can upload a version with a white background instead of a frame. I find my restoration to be alright for 1845, but you can edit it if you find smaller errorsa
I wouldn't replace the frame unless a copyright is being claimed on the scan: Those frames are very typical - honestly, kind of identifying - for daguerrotypes.Support. Few dust spots upper left in the photo part, not too important, but worth fixing.Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of allFPs.04:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as is – The restoration needs more work. The original is atThis link. The original's link should be on the restoration's file page, and identified as such. See for example any one of Adam's FPs. Comparing the restoration to the original, 1- the pin on his vest has disappeared (see thumbnail to the right), 2- the knobs on one of the daguerreotype casings has disappeared (see thumbnail to the right), 3- there is a scratch line on his right eyelid which can be improved, 4- on the restored image there is a dark shade on the frame which he is holding (see where the frame meets his shoulder), this shade is not on the original. Other smaller improvements can be made as well, for example on his shirt, but the four items I listed are the major ones.Bammesk (talk)02:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can help putting them back in if needed. It's easiest dome using layers and erasing the restored image to reveal the unrestored beneath it - presuming a colour change hasn't been done, anyway. That's why I upload so many files on the PNG.Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of allFPs.04:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sorry, I’m pretty new to restorations but I think that makes it more difficult to overlook mistakes which I confuse to be specks. I’ll try to restore backWcamp9 (talk)20:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
please stop nominating photos. Max amount of noms is 4 and you’ve passed the amount. For now, wait until you have less than 4 pictures currently candidates and then you can nominate anotherWcamp9 (talk)01:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a strict number, but you have 10 nominations, and none of them are passing. Piling more nominations atop that just decreases the chance of the older ones passing.Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of allFPs.05:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI that ArionStar was indefinitely banned from participating at FPC + blocked for 12 months (before it was changed to an indef for socking) on Commons for this exact behaviour. --SHB2000 (talk)08:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stable lead image for a notable person, now done being restored.
Articles in which this image appears
Lysander Spooner, the version with the card mount now appears inAmory Nelson Hardy. Added it to a few others just now, which probably isn't relevant to voting.
That's the natural colour. A Woodburytype is going to look different from a standard cabinet card (I believe usually an albumin print? Could be wrong). Making them look the same hides the difference.Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of allFPs.18:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on23 Jan 2025 at15:58:57 (UTC)
Original – From the file page: "E Ink Screen updating slowed to 25% of real time. This allows the viewer to see how the microspheres in the screen respond to display input."
Reason
Good EV for its article but also fascinating overall as a closeup (and slo-mo) recording of an everyday item in action.I don't think the brightening effect near the end is bloom; in my experience, E Ink displays sort of oversteer when they refresh, then bounce back a bit. Actually, watching it some more, it might be bloom; either way, I leave it to the community to decide whether the gain in details on the dark grains is worth the loss of detail in the light ones.
We can do the normal "run a delist after". The image by Charles clearly should be the lead - it's a very strong photo -but I'll slightly disagree with Charles' dismissal of the old FP since there's a gallery on the species page full of kind of... snapshotty images, and I think we can put the old FP in it and improve the gallery. In fact, I used it to replace the much more dreadfulFile:Karettschildkroete 01.jpg. But that's off-topic: Evaluating whether the old FP can replace an image in a mediocre gallery doesn't lessen the value of Charles' image, which deserves to be the lead. And hence,support: High detail, good angle for identification, and, while the water does slightly shift colours, not much we can legitimately do about that.Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of allFPs.07:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't wish to have any of my photo nominated on English FPC, especially not by ArionStar. Please withdraw this ASAP, thank you. --A.Savin (talk)10:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on26 Jan 2025 at21:23:02 (UTC)
Original – The Skeleton Dance is a 1929 Silly Symphony animated short subject with a comedy horror theme. It was produced and directed by Walt Disney and animated by Ub Iwerks. In the film, four human skeletons dance and make music around a spooky graveyard—a modern film example of medieval European "danse macabre" imagery. It is the first entry in the Silly Symphony series. In 1993, to coincide with the opening of Mickey's Toontown in Disneyland, a shortened cover of the cartoon's music was arranged to be featured in the land's background ambiance. The short's copyright was renewed in 1957, and as a published work from 1929, it entered the US public domain on January 1, 2025.
Support These bats look like natural branches of a tree. Appealing light, high level of detail, and great background, that makes the subject standing out visually. --Basile Morin (talk)05:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on28 Jan 2025 at19:09:16 (UTC)
Original –LCDdisplay driverIC,NXP Semiconductors part PCF8577C. Article caption: "A microscope image of an integrated circuitdie used to controlLCDs. Thepinouts are the dark circles surrounding the integrated circuit."
Reason
High quality lead image inIntegrated circuit andDisplay driver articles. This is a large file 146 MB, you can open it in ZoomViewer on the file page.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on28 Jan 2025 at22:36:17 (UTC)
Original – Padum-Pibiting Road from Karsha toPadum,Zanskar range towering 2,400 m (8,000 ft) above Padum (elev. 3,500 m (11,500 ft)).Zanskar,Ladakh,India
Reason
Huge image (9,069 by 6,046 pixels). Great framing as well; FP on Commons.
Support Impressive relief with the snow. The road gives the impression that these mountains are very accessible. Big road with distant focal point, and then above huge mountains with snow. It gives the feeling that after this road there's a path, and climbing up this path leads to the top. I'm sure it's much more difficult, and that's probably why the picture is interesting. Kind of "direct access to impressive peaks". --Basile Morin (talk)05:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is more a photo of the sky than the district. Most drone type photos of this district I've seen elsewhere show the bases of the buildings as well. As such, EV seems modest.Nick-D (talk)10:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – That cut off medical center building in the foreground messes up the composition for me. It makes the frame look crowded and takes too much away from what's behind it. Otherwise I'd have supported.Bammesk (talk)18:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on29 Jan 2025 at22:52:11 (UTC)
Original – A color image of Louis Armstrong playing the Trumpet in 1947
Reason
A rare color image (there is more to come of other people now that I have uploaded color images by Carl Van Vechten) of Louis Armstrong which is high quality.
Oppose - always remember that a "High EV" doesn't make a poor quality photo one worth being featured. I am saying this beacuse if you look at the image closely, you see many specksWcamp9 (talk)02:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on31 Jan 2025 at21:25:48 (UTC)
Original –A Farewell to Arms is a 1932 American pre-Code romance drama film directed by Frank Borzage and starring Helen Hayes, Gary Cooper, and Adolphe Menjou, based on Hemingway's work of the same name. The film received Academy Awards for Best Cinematography and Best Sound.Audio sync issue fixed, cropped
Reason
high resolution and quality copy of a notable film.First nomination. The file was deleted as the source novel was not yet in the public domain, and then undeleted on January 1st, 2025.
_(cropped).jpg)
_Waitakere.jpg)
_on_octopus_tree_(Heptapleurum_actinophyllum)_Colo-I-Suva.jpg)
_Double_Haven_HK.jpg)
_-_Restoration.jpg)
.jpg)
Comment: Because a photo in an article is supposed to add value on its own. This doesn't. It only makes any sense after you read about it. For me, that is the wrong way round. Also, it adds little value to DNA article and isn't included in double helix article,Why? I Ask.Charlesjsharp (talk)10:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
Fixed version here:File:Rescue workers near the semi-collapsed ten-story Uranus Building on Xuanyuan Road after the 2024 Hualien earthquake.jpg --Basile Morin (talk)12:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination for nominating the edited one after 7 days.ArionStar (talk)17:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
_Tiritiri_Matangi.jpg)
_and_goslings_Burgerpark.jpg)
_in_flight_Rarotonga_2.jpg)
%2c_Zanz%25C3%25ADbar%2c_Tanzania%2c_2024-06-01%2c_DD_06.jpg)
_-_Dark_Archduke_(Female)_puddling_on_rotten_Neolamarckia_cadamba_flowerWLB.jpg)
Done.ArionStar (talk)02:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
N Please restore the previous version onIslam too (nomination already modified). The derivative work suffers fromJPG compression. Only 5.76 MB (for a minor crop) while the original weighs 8.46 MB. The embedded profile has also been changed by the sockpuppet / uploaderAliphotographypretending to be the author. It is now "Display P3" instead of standard "sRGB IEC61966-2.1" in the original version. I think this file should bedelisted and replaced on Commons with a valid (and separate) upload. --Basile Morin (talk)03:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
_by_Dudley_Hardy.jpg)
_underside_Taveuni.jpg)
_Moorea.jpg)
_with_calf_Moorea_2.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_%2522%2527Gobs%2527%2522_of_Work).jpg)
Question: Is "just a guy from Commons" an insult?ArionStar (talk)22:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
%2c_Anilao%2c_Filipinas%2c_2023-08-25%2c_DD_240.jpg)
_Diamond_from_the_collection_of_the_national_jewels_of_Iran_at_Central_Bank_of_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
%2c_Anilao%2c_Filipinas%2c_2023-08-24%2c_DD_178.jpg)
_Taveuni.jpg)
Request withdrawn Sorry, you are right.Charlesjsharp (talk)11:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
_Moorea.jpg)
_breeding_adult_Gronjordssoen.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_male_Phinda.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWildfire_smoke_blankets_eastern_Ontario_06-2023.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aEnterprise_after_2023_wildfires_(4).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_%2522%2527Gobs%2527%2522_of_Work).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Moorea.jpg%23c-Basile_Morin-20241216011400-Charlesjsharp-20241215150500){kind=link}
_with_calf_Moorea_2.jpg){kind=link}
_with_calf_Moorea_2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Mount_Annan_composite_of_6.jpg){kind=link}
_Diamond_from_the_collection_of_the_national_jewels_of_Iran_at_Central_Bank_of_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran.jpg){kind=link}
_Diamond_from_the_collection_of_the_national_jewels_of_Iran_at_Central_Bank_of_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bsection%3dT-1){kind=link}
_Diamond_from_the_collection_of_the_national_jewels_of_Iran_at_Central_Bank_of_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran.jpg%26amp%3bdiff%3dprev%26amp%3boldid%3d1270811973){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bsection%3dT-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bsection%3dT-1){kind=link}
