Composoition is breathtaking, angle and setting is very encyclopedic for describing the lighthouse, winner of Wiki Loves Monuments 2015. I'm aware that quality could be a little better, but I think it's decent, and per the reasons above, this picture deserves FP imho.
Support This photo is part of the series. In a way, all these photos are duplicating each another becuase they are depicting the same object. Do you think that there is a better photo from the same series which can be nominated to the Featured pictures? Vitaly Repin (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me - the high of the camera position isn't ideal but everything is clear, and fountain is centre and in just about enough detail. What do you mean by "Loose Composition" Sca? I don't understand your terminology. The fountain is dead centre, exactly the same amount of each green triangles showing, the horiozontal and vertical lines of the lighter paving is plum... gazhiley10:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Empty space usually is boring. True, there are people in it, but from this vantage point they are too small to be interesting. Aesthetically and in terms of EV, it's a substandard composition, IMO. Sca (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I haven't been to this fountain but I have seen similar fountains in person. This is not a good image of the fountain (the angle of view diminishes height). Bammesk (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If they are good enough to nominate why would there be a limit? We are looking for the best pictures Wikipedia has to offer, not just the first few you can find... The more the merrier! gazhiley10:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clear EV surely? It is a picture of Hanover New Town Hall lobby, used in an article of the Town Hall. That's about as clear and EV as you could ask for? gazhiley10:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - on my 17" screen (MacBook Pro), I had to magnify to 200% to even start seeing grain in the lighter areas. Not sure if that's a good or bad thing. Atsme📞📧14:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2016 at 11:51:22 (UTC)
OriginalAdoration of the Shepherds by Gerard van Honthorst, 1622. A Nativity scene showing the shepherds and the animals in the stall, who surround Mary and newborn Jesus, covered in light, and lit by the Christ Child.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2016 at 16:40:16 (UTC)
Original – A World War II British propaganda poster advising against "careless talks" to protect sensitive information. The poster shows glamorous woman on a bar stool who makes eye contact with the viewer, often described as "bedroom eyes".
Reason
Good overall condition, with only minor border restoration. One of those creative WWII posters.
Oppose - I'm not sure about the EV. It's a nice picture and all, but it's buried at the bottom of one article, with no mention of this specific poster. It even says the best keeping quiet posters are those "depicting people giving away secrets in everyday situations". Which this one is not. Mattximus (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. An interesting design, but it doesn't seem to have much EV beyond being another example, and a fairly atypical one at that. It's the kind of thing I'd like to support, but do not feel that I can at this time. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2016 at 02:20:39 (UTC)
Original – "A QantasBoeing 747-400 flying at approximately 11,000 metres in revised color scheme viewed from the ground at Starbeyevo in Moscow... The white clouds are contrails, condensed water vapour made by the exhaust of aircraft engines. f. 400D + 1200mm telescope + 2x Barlow lens."
Reason
Interesting image used to illustrate several articles; already featured on Commons. Please note the shorter side of this image is 1,333 pixels, but due to the specialized nature of this photo and its encyclopedic value to multiple articles I am hoping that the FPC voters will agree to make an exception to the 1,500 minimum pixels guideline.
Support. Thinking about it, I have to support this. It is not easy to take a high-resolution image of something 36,000 feet in the air from the ground. This is relatively high quality for images of aircraft contrails. sst✈(discuss)15:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm in a quandary regarding minimum size. Given the nature of the shot and the tightness of the crop the detail is actually very high and difficult to improve upon. Comparable or greater than similar shots that meet minimum size. @gazhiley: There is also a possible exception for "technically difficult" images which this may qualify under.
As an exercise I wonder how many would support the same photo if there was a touch more lead room to bring it up to min size? [1] (not a serious alt) - Wolftick (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nice composition, but I don't really see any reason that the minimum should be waived for this image, it's not a one of a kind event. Mattximus (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – shutter speed metadata 1/400 seconds seemed too slow, so I did a calculation. Plane length 232ft, speed 560miles/hour, so the plane moves 0.9% of its body length in 1/400 seconds (which is 11 pixels in our image). There is no way the image can be this sharp if the plane moved 11 pixels during exposure. So the shutter speed metadata is wrong. A realistic exposure would be 1/4000 seconds or faster (which the Canon 400D barely makes). On the other hand, the image has EV, is technically good, is difficult to shoot and to replicate, and per Wolftick more sky [2] doesn't help a lot (although I think it helps some). Question: Is the incorrect metadata a disqualifier? Bammesk (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't. Now it makes sense, the shutter speed is at 1/400 and my question is mute. For what it's worth, these are more images from the same author 1234Bammesk (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Processed from JPG not RAW, saved on Photoshop CS6 at maximum quality. Background has NR filter. Taken at quite a high ISO (800) in order to get 1/1000 sec handheld at 400mm. I am sure there are many better-qualified Photoshop experts! Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's hardly anything further to see. Please take a look at the second photo. Also, we feature photos of birds' faces and bodies like this one and this one, so it seems to me that the nominated photo is sufficient. --Pine✉17:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In both of your mentioned cases, there is a clear focus on the face of the bird. Here it appears that there was an attempt to photograph the whole bird, but it failed. Our full-body shots almost invariably have the tail in the frame. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Agree with Crisco, you would have to include all of the tail for this to be an encyclopaedic image. Some cases it's not possible or desirable to include the whole animal, but in this case there is no reason for the tail to be cut off. Mattximus (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this difference to any other branded product that gets put up for FP Sca? We feature countless branded products, based on the quality of the picture and EV. gazhiley16:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2016 at 21:21:34 (UTC)
Original – The Thin Red Line, an illustration by Harold H. Piffard from the magazine Canada in Khaki showing a line of red poppies separating the war and peace. Published in 1917–1919, Canada in Khaki featured war art reproductions, cartoons, military histories and personal recollections as a tribute to Canadian soldiers fighting in World War I.Alt 1: Restoration. I can't find another copy, so I've used my judgement based on previous work on things like these, for example, that the upper left blue patch was an inking error (it looked very odd when you zoomed in). About as good as this is going to get, methinks.
Reason
In a curious military coincidence, this precedes The Thin Red Line and both films based on it. Excellent resolution.
Oppose for now. Text is bleeding through at the borders, some spots have blown highlights, and there's a spot where the paper moved away from the scanner which needs fixing. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The black shadow at the top left corner appears to be where the paper curved away from the scanner. I've seen the same thing in the books I've scanned. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a great scan of fairly poor quality print. While this may be the original format it was published in I don't think it has sufficient EV to make up for the lack of quality. - Wolftick (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean the part where the ink ran outside of the lines (that's fine). I meant that it appears there is some text / image bleed through along the top border. It's not present at the bottom. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bammesk: From my experience with 1910s illustrations, the very pale text of the caption is evidence that the very light shades in the first upload is down to a bad, blurry scan. Dark blue is typical for a lot of illustrations in this period, a pale blue simply doesn't happen. I believe the original is simply a very bad scan (well, probably a bad photo) of the same exact source image. I'd say disregard it. Adam Cuerden(talk)02:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Agrtee with Tremonist re text overlap. Could have been partially solved by making the overlapping part a different color, but that always looks tacky. Sca (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Something feels off with this image. For some reason everything but the title is capitalized. It's hard to see where atmosphere is pointing compared to hydrosphere. I think this image can be re imagined, perhaps with some measurements. Mattximus (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2016 at 10:57:58 (UTC)
Original – A magazine ad from De Orient for the 1941 film Panggilan Darah. This film starred Dhalia and Soerip as orphaned sisters trying to make a living in Batavia (now Jakarta).
Reason
High quality public domain advertisement for a (likely lost) film from the 1940s. Resolution is... well, it was scanned at about 1000DPI, so...
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2016 at 08:36:12 (UTC)
Original – This telegram was sent by German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmermann to the President of Mexico proposing a military alliance against the United States. In return for Mexican support in the war, Germany would help Mexico regain New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona from the United States. The British intercepted the secret message, deciphered it, and turned it over to the U.S. Government.
Reason
A Hi-res image of the undecoded Zimmerman Telegram, offering what the Imperial German Government called "generous financial support and understanding" to the Mexican government if it would enter the war as an ally of the Central Powers in World War I. Germany had a vested interest in keeping the United States tied down in order to prevent Washington from resupplying the British Empire, or worse entering World War I as an Allied Power. Ultimately, the Zimmerman Telegram would prove to a be a propaganda piece for the United States, as Mexico had determined that it was both unnecessary and unwise to intervene in the war as a Central Powers nation, all the more so since the German Empire could not guarantee sufficient funding to support an independent Mexican national bank and the territory the German Empire had thought to return to Mexican control had by this point been infested with U.S. Citizens, most of whom possessed firearms of some kind and had no trouble putting said weaponry to use in the event of a Mexican reconquest.
Comment Super-duper EV. However, this is not a scan of the telegram itself, but of a photo (possibly a transparency) of the telegram (note stapler holes top left, outside of telegram). Needs some restoration, there are some hairs and dust spots, and also a bit uneven exposure. Anyone? --Janke | Talk11:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest here: I though it had been restored since it was supersized and decent looking compared to some of the other photos on the article page itself. If that is not the case then I apologize. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – An artifact of interest to historians, but I don't think the coded telegram has much EV, as the general reader can't decipher it. Sca (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it matter if the reader can't decipher it? You don't have to be Alan Turing to realize its significance. I can't read the Magna Carta but its very much important. Not saying the Zimmerman Telegram is as important as the Magna Carta, but still. GamerPro6416:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but to my mind this is much more interesting.
This is being put forth as representative of sash windows. Curtains are not, in and of themselves, part of such windows. Furthermore, the lines of the curtains distracts from the windows themselves (for me, at least). This is exacerbated by the fact that the window frames and curtains are the same color. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd rather see either a drawing or a photo where the construction method would be more evident (for instance how the counterweight is concealed) - none such in the article. --Janke | Talk11:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can't, since I don't have the necessary knowledge. But I would like to find that info in a drawing or photo and improve my knowledge... That's why I browse Wikipedia! ;-) --Janke | Talk08:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article says: To facilitate operation, the weight of the glazed panel is usually balanced by a heavy steel, lead, or cast iron sash weight or counter-weight concealed within the window frame. - but that doesn't apply to these, then?? Better add that info to the caption, then... (PS: We don't have sash windows in Finland, ours are usually triple-glazed, all hinged.) --Janke | Talk19:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sash windows on our house have these, most don't (at least on the lower panels ... I haven't had to pull any of the upper ones down in a while). Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As creator. I agree with the nominator that this is a very good depiction of the subject and fail to see how the presence of the curtains and the absence of the counterweights affect its EV. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the plaster background really blueish in color? If so, why so different between the pics? The first one is almost grey, the others much bluer. --Janke | Talk19:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Pretty good action shot with decent res. Links to an extensive (probably too extensive – 23,000 words!) article about a most significant ongoing issue. Sca (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my !vote at Commons. To add to that, I like it even more since then because this shows the refugees at the moment they become part of the ongoing European migrant crisis. It is the end of their beginning. Daniel Case (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've tried to take cruise ship images through FPC before and it isn't easy to get all the angles right while getting a high def image with some decent light. But this has it all across the board. Miyagawa (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2016 at 16:58:49 (UTC)
Original – An archaeological reconstruction of Holt Castle c1495
Reason
Holt Castle was demolished in the 17th century and isn't much to look at now. This video recreates the castle c1495 and takes the viewer on a tour of both the exterior and interior.
Rick Turner and Chris Jones-Jenkins undertook extensive research to produce this archaeological reconstruction. Rick Turner was Inspector of Ancient Monuments with Cadw and Chris Jones-Jenkins has produced reconstruction drawings for Cadw and English Heritage. Mint Motion created this video based on the 3D model they produced. The work is openly licensed and was done for the Castle Studies Trust, a charity for which I am a trustee. Richard Nevell (talk)
Oppose - Nothing wrong with the reconstruction itself (that I can see) but including the title card comes across too much as advertising. For CC purposes, a hyperlink is sufficient for attribution. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco1492Sca: I have removed the title card and re-uploaded the file. I understand the other comments about the textures, but that is beyond my abilities and commissioning the company to redo the video once would probably be too expensive. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Richard Nevell, the video was better with the title card. It's a video, titles are expected, and knowing that it was by the Castles Studies Trust gives the reader an idea of the research behind the reconstruction. You cannot expect the reader to watch all the way to the end of the video, or to click through to the video info page, I bet most readers wouldn't even know how to click through to the video info page. - hahnchen20:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the title card helped frame why the content can be taken seriously. And YouTube analytics indicate around half the viewers watch to the end credits, so that's a good chunk who might not get the context. It was on screen for five or six seconds. User:Crisco 1492User:Hahnchen, would reducing it to say two seconds be an acceptable middle ground between establishing the content and context of the video and a laying concerns about advertising? Richard Nevell (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On Youtube, having the credit card is fine. On Wikipedia, we have policies such as Wikipedia:WATERMARK which are against the inclusion of watermarks. "Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits or titles in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion, titles, etc. and is used in the related article. Exceptions may be made for historic images when the credit or title forms an integral part of the composition." "Images" in this case can be understood as both still images and moving images. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see WP:WATERMARK applying to video, it's clearly written for static images. I can understand opposing a video with a watermark such as a digital on-screen graphic, which like a still image watermark is visible throughout, but the context provided by the title card is valuable. Just ignore the concerns and make the video better. - hahnchen01:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless WP:WATERMARK explicitly states video is not included, it should be assumed to be, the same as video being included in (for instance) featured pictures. Commons likewise is against including visible watermarks in images (though they, too, do not make any explicit distinction between still and moving images). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It explicitly refers to "photo credits". None of the talk pages even consider video. I find it bizarre that a title card is referred to a watermark. If you're going to follow your "moving images" interpretation of WP:WATERMARK to the letter, you should be opposing based on the end credits. Most readers will not even know how to navigate to the video image page. - hahnchen11:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: Look at the end shot: It's reflecting the stone used. This is actually a really good reconstruction, but I'd like to see some better texturing. It's all a bit early-90s-looking because of the very simple textures, when the underlying work is superb. Adam Cuerden(talk)22:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And part of that is understandable in an effort to reduce the amount of extraneous detail being read in. However... I think that somewhat more would help here at FP. But at the same time... it's still an excellent work, and presents research very well. So, on EV, I'd support, but on visuals I'd weak oppose... Hm. Adam Cuerden(talk)02:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - wow, extreme EV, not only for this castle but also medieval castles in general. This type of content is severely lacking on WP and the creators should be applauded for releasing it under a free license. Renata (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find this a highly valuable illustration of the article. However I also see the non-natural vivid colour as a distracting weakness. The shadow is also poorly chosen, as it comes from the north-north-west at ca.45° angle - this is not possible at its location in the northern hemisphere. Also agree with Cris that the credits could be cropped. All these changes are relatively easy to do for the creators of the CAD model. -ELEKHHT23:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - For an idea of the layout, I prefer clean lines over photorealistic textures. I find the flickering lighting from the "camera" mildly annoying. But I trust that the scholarship behind this is second to none. - hahnchen12:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support - On the reinstatement of the title card, it's where the trust comes from. You cannot expect the reader to click through to the description page or watch till the visible end credits. Oppose otherwise. The nominator believes the video is better with the title card, so why pander? - hahnchen11:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2016 at 21:45:05 (UTC)
Original – An enzyme (TEV protease) bound to a substrate (black) contains a catalytic triad of residues (red). The triad consists of an acidic residue (Acid), histidine (Base) and the nucleophile (Nuc). In the case on TEV protease, the acid is aspartate and the nucleophile is cysteine. (PDB: 1lvm)
Reason
This is a professional-quality scientific illustration of a protein, highlighting the key structural features underlying a very common catalytic mechanism for enzymes. The chemistry of the catalytic triad is commonly taught in undergraduate biochemistry courses, giving a high-quality illustration high encyclopedic value. (This nomination is a follow-up to the conversation in this recent delisting nomination for a dated- and generic-looking protein illustration. This newly nominated image would give us a high-quality protein example in a modern style.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I confess that I don't really know much about this sort of thing, but this image is below the size requirements and looks to have been slightly up-sized (visible pixelation on diagonal lines) anyway. In addition, would an svg not be preferred? Josh Milburn (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – On size, per Josh. I must confess I know zilch about this sort of thing, and thus tend to think it abstruse for most readers, but realize I'm biased in this view. Sca (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as creator - Thank you for the recommendations. I can update to 2800x1600px pretty easily (adding lines and text to larger size version). I'm also happy make an svg instead if there's consensus that that's better, however I've tended to favour raster when vector benefits only a few elements, since I think the average user finds pngs easier to download and use. As Opabinia regalis suspected, the protein image itself would just be an embedded raster within the vector file. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk02:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are scans of etchings around ([5][6]) that I feel would have greater EV for the artist than a relatively poor quality print, and the magazine I feel is well (and better) served by H. Piffard - The Thin Red Line limiting EV in that regard. While the quality of the restoration is admirable the size of the original scan is fairly marginal and the quality of the image is not very clear (again comparing with H. Piffard - The Thin Red Line). - Wolftick (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In some ways, I like this one better than The Thin Red Line, but aesthetics are a personal call. This may have to do with the difficulty in getting happy with the restorations - The Thin Red Line felt more difficult, and took a lot of experimentation to get the colours right, because the scan was tinted fairly strongly (as such things go) towards yellow. This one felt like a smoother birth. Adam Cuerden(talk)06:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I felt The Thin Red Line had good EV for Remembrance poppy, an additional aspect this lacks. Also the digital compression artefacts especially in the background (thanks to the BL for that. 761kB for a 5.4MP file... Really...) are pretty obvious and bothersome to me, although your mileage may vary. - Wolftick (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Formatting of the "other versions" could really use an improvement (why is it using a horribly huge font?) and a removal of other graphics (planets&comet) which are not other versions of this file but rather an unique files on their own. SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2016 at 16:00:08 (UTC)
Original –The painting was commissioned from van Dyck by the Sodality of Our Lady in Antwerp, where van Dyk lived a while. The painting shows one of his mystical experiences, encountering Mary
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2016 at 18:36:52 (UTC)
Original – Among the Sierra Nevada, California, is an oil on canvas painting by German-born American painter Albert Bierstadt (1830-1902) who was noted for his landscape art.
Reason
Work by a notable artist that is shown in his article and in the Hudson River School article; 4,001 × 2,387 pixels
Weak support – Here, at least the highlights look proper. Nevertheless, I wonder if the lower left corner really is that dark and featureless in the original painting ? --Janke | Talk10:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I experimented a bit, there is indeed some detail in the shadow area. Some careful lightening would be beneficial, IMO. --Janke | Talk16:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2016 at 23:34:46 (UTC)
Original – As our article says: "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte – 1884 (French: Un dimanche après-midi à l'Île de la Grande Jatte – 1884) is one of Georges Seurat's most famous works, and is an example of pointillism."ALT -Take this as an alt. By the way, this is a png. (2,990 × 2,009 pixels) ALT " - this is a .jpg - 2,991 × 2,012 pixels
Reason
Scan is 30,000 × 19,970 pixels. Georges Seurat - French post-Impressionist painter's rather famous painting, from 1884. He was a and pointillist - he made his painings with dots. Frame is painted too.
Oppose I think the contrast is a bit off. There's a photo of the painting in context in the article]], and, although that's hardly a perfect representation, since we know it's in a white frame, we can reasonably say that the bright spots of the painting are reasonably bright, and contrast with the dark parts. Here, it looks dull. Seurat isn't dull. Adam Cuerden(talk)08:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Adam. The dress of the girl in the middle appears to be almost white compared to the frame in the small photo, here it is a dull, 65% grey. Check the histogram - it is quite skewed to the left. Fix the brightness/contrast/gamma, and I'll most certainly support. --Janke | Talk09:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wavering – Must agree with Adam and Janke re colors. Interesting that both the nominated image and the brighter one Janke cites are credited to the Art Institute of Chicago. Sca (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm increasingly inclined to think that the reason these very highly detailed scans are often perceived as dull or lacking contrast is not because they are inaccurate per se. More that the extremely neutral microscopic capture does not reflect well the way the human eye perceives the painting in situ, especially from a more typical viewing distance. I've viewed Suarat very close up before and at a similar scale the brush work and the colour in the Art Project capture feels familiar and right, but then again I'd agree that in overview it feels relatively dull and lifeless. I don't think there is a simple solution to this issue other than to observe that it is probably the case that different types of captures are more suited to different uses and simply reducing the scale of very large detailed scans is often unsatisfactory when an overview is required. - Wolftick (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yep, Wolfie, I did this on purpose. Wolftick, Sca, Crisco 1492, Janke (I am not pinging Adam since he asked me to stay away from his page) - this situation is exactly the same situation that we have here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Filippino Lippi 016.jpg - same thing, but the reverse in this case. Now is there a way to settle this? When is the big big scan preffered and when the smaller - or anyway ... as User:Wolftick points out here - "these very highly detailed scans are often perceived as dull or lacking contrast. Yes they are. So, what's the solution? Can we discuss this=? Hafspajen (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Yan said, there is a smaller scan,(2,990 × 2,009 pixels) that has probably more lighter colours - though this painting is rather big, compared to the angel, that is tiny, this one is 207.5 × 308.1 cm (81.7 × 121.3 in). Hafspajen (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to acknowledge that paintings are physical somewhat 3 dimensional subjects and lighting will have a big effect on the look and feel of the image. Therefore the digitisation may be accurate but still not match the look and feel of the painting when seen in person. My personal preference is for detailed, neutral, somewhat analytical images with as much depth of colour as possible as I find this most interesting and objective, even if is does rather sacrifice reproducing the feel of the painting when viewed in overview. I think the latter goal is more subjective and therefore less encyclopaedic. I do have sympathy with both sides though - Wolftick (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thing here is, that as such, filling the display screen, the image looks quite OK, since your eyes adapt to the lower brightness very quickly - but as soon as you have a reference white (such as on this, or any other Wiki page), the painting looks very dull. The histogram tells it all - it is virtually flat on the right one third. It shouldn't be a problem to fix this, I would do it, but the file is a little too big for my already old(ish) merely 4GB RAM computer to handle... (Oh, I remember my very first computer, it had a whopping 16 KB of RAM - note: kilo, not mega, nor giga... ;-) --Janke | Talk09:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, I posted Jankes's suggested scan as an alt. Or shall we go with the Fix the brightness/contrast/gamma as Janke suggested? Why do I have a feeling Wolfie won't like that (:)) Hafspajen (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original - I'm glad to see other people acknowledging the contrast and brightness issues with these hi-res scans. I feel like we have often ignored it in the past. In response to Wolftick's comments, I think the reason the hi-res scans are dark and low contrast is a simple matter of optics. As anyone who's done photography through a microscope can attest, you have to flood the subject with blinding amounts of light to get anything approaching "normal" contrast in the photograph (as you are spreading a single pinpoint across the entire sensor). Exposing paint to extremely intense light is a bad idea, so I imagine they try to make due with just enough light to get an acceptable exposure. Personally, I prefer lower-res images that have closer to "normal" contrast, i.e. what you would experience without a camera in typical gallery lighting. Kaldari (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2016 at 23:48:22 (UTC)
Original – Flyer for Lagu Kenangan, a 1953 film directed by L. Inata for Djamaluddin Malik's Persari. It follows the domestic troubles of a composer and his wife.
Reason
A high quality scan of a contemporary film flyer, properly licensed and digitally restored
Comment I'd suggest a little sharpening to the extreme lower left corner of the printed area, which is very slightly blurry. Otherwise excellent, so Support. Adam Cuerden(talk)18:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, the image illustrates not the tram vehicle alone, but how a street with tramway looks, with the lower half of the image showing the tracks, while the upper part showing the overheads. There is a certain tendency at FPC to demand images to be cropped and exclude context. But tramways are urban infrastructure that is integrated with street design. The EV of this image is that it shows a typical street cross-section with tram infrastructure. It doesn't illustrate an article about the tram vehicle, it illustrates an article about the entire tramway system of a city. Perhaps should have named the nomination differently, but the 'reason' section above makes this point, even though succinctly. --ELEKHHT22:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One wouldn't have to crop it real tight – one still could include some context of tracks, catenary, streetscape – but a different angle is needed to show the tram itself. (It would be cool, but difficult, to capture some blue electrical flash between the pantograph and catenary.) Sca (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The same exact picture, but 10 metres to the right on the otherside of the tracks at the bottom right of this picture would make this FP worthy, as it would have a side on view of the tram... gazhiley10:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Intriguing work by a little-known Norwegian artist. And cuz deep greens and blues are the colors I choose. Sca (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, at the bottom of the image file I saw only two links, the one to my own talk page and the one for the article on the artist. Then, yesterday, when I was discussing a word in the article with the article's creator, Oceanh, s/he mentioned that the image of the painting in the article for the painting, The Blue Kitchen, was a different image, and not as good as the one in the article about the artist. Perhaps the version in the article about the artist (which is above) should be added to the article about the painting. I don't know if I should link the article about the painting here since it shows a different version. Corinne (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad the picture was changed in the painting's article, but at the time I nominated the painting, I didn't even know about that article, and it wasn't among the links in the image file. Corinne (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Knowing CMR as I do, the image looks a wee bit washed-out, as if it had been sitting in the sun. Which, for the original, is entirely possible (CMR had a tendency to trade paintings for services so some of them hung in bars and family homes for decades). His colors are usually a bit more saturated. Montanabw(talk)23:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On one hand, I agree with you and support on the grounds that this particular one is not a painting I've seen IRL, so it may well be faded; on the other hand, All the images at that site from Amon Carter museum look a bit washed-out to me. Of the ones in Montana (two museums) I've seen many up close, multiple times (in fact, some of the much-lower quality image on wiki are photos I took of the actual art using a cheap camera and existing light with no tripod... meh); the Christmas greeting, for example, is on very weathered material, time has faded it. You may want to download and compare the PowerPoint of the Russell images at this link, which I think are better-quality scans and more accurately portray his range. The Russell palette is unique; his best work portrays the light of the Montana landscape with considerable accuracy (as those of us who live here know...) some have even dubbed his use of light in his oils as "Charlie Russell light." Montana is a dry state, but it's not a washed-out desert — that's one of the big differences between Russell and the less-talented but better-known Remington (whose work was more typical of the southwest). ;-) Montanabw(talk)20:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lead image in the stub article riding mower which I just created, and moderate EV in the article lawn mower. Large size at 6,020 × 4,016 pixels, and nice overhead angle, contribute to the value of the image.
Oppose – Although it's a large file, detail at full res is, as gazhiley notes, rather poor – due apparently to the camera's distance from the subject and the inclusion of wide lawn context. Further, the composition – overhead view of a faceless guy on a mower – lacks visual interest, IMO. Sca (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2016 at 05:23:01 (UTC)
Original – Lawson Wood's contribution to WWI British recruitment posters targeted the Scots . The caption's reference is to the Germans declaring the Treaty of London (1839), which granted Belgium's neutrality and independence, as a "scrap of paper", then violating the treaty they signed and invading.
Reason
We lacked a Scottish recruitment poster for WWI. Now we have it, and it's a fine illustration. I suspect the cartoon was borrowed for the poster, given that, unusually, the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee very carefully notes Wood as the copyright holder, hence why it's not uploaded as Crown Copyright on commons.
@Miyagawa: Oh, hey, the NZ library (or was it LoC? I looked through both soon after each other) has a large copy of that one. We don't have articles on a lot of battalions, so I hadn't added it to my list. Adam Cuerden(talk)20:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Adam Cuerden Can you be kind enough to explain something to me? Kinda offtopic here I think but somewhat connected as well. The copyright notice on the wikipedia page of this file says that it will copyrighted in the source country till 2028 but the link given on the "source" takes me here, and it is written that there are no copyright restrictions on this poster. Can you explain a bit please? Kinda confused. Feel free to use my talkpage if this appears offtopic here. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FreeatlastChitchat: Precaution, perhaps in excess: Unlike most Parliamentary Recruiting Committee posters, this poster explicitly gives copyright to someone other than them. As such, Crown Copyright may not apply, possibly due to Lawson Wood's work being pre-published and used with permission - but it may just be the publisher instead showing excessive grabbiness for copyright they didn't actually have. In any case, just enough ambiguity that I'd prefer to be careful. It's definitely and unambiguously out of copyright in America. Adam Cuerden(talk)08:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2016 at 12:17:43 (UTC)
Original – The Fiancee of Belus is a painting by French artist Henri-Paul Motte based on a fanciful Babylonian ritual associated with deity Belus (Bel). According to that ritual, Bel was offered a girl who sat on the lap of the Bel's statue overnight, and then was replaced by another, all of whom were the winners of daily beauty contests.
Reason
While the Musée d'Orsay website has only a small version, the painting was digitized in high-res before the acquisition by its current owner.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2016 at 02:24:17 (UTC)
Original – Fear and Desire (1953) is the first feature film directed by Stanley Kubrick. He hated this anti-war film with a vengeance and tried to have all copies destroyed, but it has survived and is in the public domain because the copyright wasn't extended.
Question - Great EV, but I'm wondering if this is the highest quality available digital version of the film? It appears to be 480p, which is quite low. Mattximus (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source is at 720p wide, but my conversion program (source downloads as FLV; we only support webm and another rare open format) doesn't have a 720p output at the proper ratio. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Downloading the 720p version from source and converting to webM should be fairly easy for me. Uploading such a large file might be tricky though (wikipedia upload limitations mainly). The actual highest quality available digital version would be sourced from the 1080p blu-ray release though. As I said in this nomination, I do think it's a shame that moving images are seemingly not held to the same standards regarding digitisation when it comes to FPC that still images are. - Wolftick (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Using the upload wizard and uploading a new file, or installing the script I used and uploading with that, will allow a maximum upload size of 1gb.
As for the quality concerns: you're not going to have the same standards for a long time. One, getting video is still relatively uncommon, and hence why there has been no standardization even among video files themselves. Then there's the fact that we are limited to a maximum upload size of 1gb: you can't upload a film of an hour's length at 4k with such limitations, for instance, but a 4k still image is a cakewalk. Furthermore, nobody on-wiki seems to actually restore films; we have a plethora of skilled still image editors, and thus the bar is set quite high for those, but nobody does films that I know of. For historic videos like these, that can be troublesome, but standards won't increase until we have an increase in the average quality of video nominated. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns are not with general video quality standards or standardisation. They are specifically with videos nominated for FP that have clear technical deficiencies (visible compression, low resolution) where a substantially higher quality version is relatively easily and freely available. They may be of high EV but I feel they should probably fail on WP:WIAFP .1 and .2 if the criteria is applied in a similar way it is to still images. - Wolftick (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know your concerns are with FP videos. I already explains three reasons for such issues: 1) our required format (the AVI I got was nice and sharp, but we're not allowed to have AVI), 2) the upload cap, and 3) the fact that nobody is restoring historical video. Bars cannot be set higher until the current bars are being crossed regularly; videos are so rarely nominated here that that doesn't happen for them. There's a reason it's so much harder to successfully nominate an image of a bird then an image of, say, a 1950s athlete. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we get around the upload cap by simply uploading "part 1" and "part 2"? If the standards or upload size for wikipedia changes in the future we can just stitch them back together? Mattximus (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do and would do so and upload, however I am a little concerned regarding the copyright status of the restored release in the UK. Happy to describe the free (as in beer) software required and process for downloading and transcoding to anyone though. - Wolftick (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2016 at 13:59:18 (UTC)
Original – Jules Massenet by the first video pornographerEugène Pirou. The article on Pirou focuses so heavily on his pornography that I didn't dare add the photo to his page.
Reason
By far the best of the images I can find for Massenet. Delicate photography combined with a natural pose; everything else was either really odd photographic artefacts, or weird poses. Major composer, certainly deserves our attention. (Also, any crop desired can be done with {{CSS image crop}}, if the carte de visite mount is not desirable for some use.)
Support - I thought it was perhaps a pixel or two wonky, but after checking properly it wasn't. My eyes must just be playing tricks on me! Miyagawa (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to go too far and make the photograph look like a different type of photo, though. I mean, all the details are visible in both, it's just darkness of moustache. Adam Cuerden(talk)07:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm my support is for Orig As I like the framing of the Tower etc being included. More realistic of it's setting as it explains the fencing and objects on the peak of the hill behind the sign that seem to be just randomly there in the ALT. gazhiley10:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I too would like to have ALT featured, but original is a tad better IMHO. In fact, I compared both before nominating and I have opted for the original. I think the picture may have been wrongly placed in the article, but the section 'Location' describes the background of the Sign, like the tower and those antennas. So I think I prefer original. Nikhil (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be understandable with a single exposure (I suspect that bluff is a fair bit closer than the rest of the scene) but I'd agree it's a bit odd when everything else is very sharp indeed. Amazing photo though. Prefer alt: crop compositionally but original has greater EV. - Wolftick (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thanks Nikhil for the nominatiuon! :-) The unsharp area on the left is out of focus because of the depth of field. I focused on the sign and took every image with this adjustment. So the result is like a one-shot with extreme aperture. I think the result appears more natural if you use the same focus setting in each of the 79 single images. The unsharp foreground is OK for me, because through that you get a depth effect and nothing important gets lost. Regards, Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Harsh colouring, and artificial appearance perhaps because it is stitched from many different images? I don't see the point of the crop which still includes acres of bushes. Between the two images, the original has the advantage of showing some context and also the same view as the 1970's one in the article. ProfDEH (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support No preference on which version. I like the first for the entire scope of the hilltop being included, but likewise the alt is the classic crop of the sign itself. Miyagawa (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: That's just a suggestion (criterion just says " It is preferable"), meant to avoid edit warring images in. When you work with the person who got the article to FA to select the image it's not such an issue. Adam Cuerden(talk)16:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, per above... Nothing about this picture screams "Passion", and could be anywhere in the world at any time - nothing to show this is actually an Arbaeen procession... gazhiley10:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unidentified groups of people walking along a road, while a street vendor offers wares? No, I would say scenes like that happen all over the world sorry Mhhossein... gazhiley16:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only in Arbaeen procession you'll see a man sitting on the ground holding a plate of dates on his head. his is not a vendor, no vendor puts his goods on his head! This act is done just to respect the pilgrims. Please read this text. Tnx --Mhhossein (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein I did not know that they had arbaeen in Ghana lol. For if this style of vendor is exclusive to arbaeen the picture I linked must be from arbaenn. btw the ghana girl is carrying fruit in four badass tiers like a boss. she beats the puny date guy by a mile . FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Mhhossein it just looks like a guy sitting down selling food. There is nothing in the picture to show he is providing them free, and I'm sure somewhere in the world someone has placed a plate on their head other than just here. Either way there is still nothing to indicate that he is "passionately" sitting down. gazhiley17:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a unwritten rule to have more then 120 words? It's not mentioned in the Featured picture criteria. The hospital is undeniably relevant, one of the one of the largest in Scandinavia and takes care of more than 100,000 patients each year (according to the source in the article). There are also Wikipedia articles in six languages.--ArildV (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused. A lot of featured pictures are only used in stub articles. This does not disqualify them from being promoted to FP status. It just means that they may not be eligible for appearance on the main page as POTD. sst✈15:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just on a simple point of accurately depicting the subject, the evening sun makes the buildings look yellow, when they are in fact pure white - Wolftick (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Don't mind the golden hour shot, and though this shot looks messy because of the other buildings included, I can't imagine another way to show the whole hospital. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – While it's not bad as an aerial view of a cityscape, the jumbled and cluttery nature of the subject and its context reduces illustrative value, IMO. (Perhaps it could be cropped a bit?) Sca (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per Sca in so much as I have no idea what buildings are part of the hospital, other than of course the main stretch in the picture. However it is a nice picture so stil weak support. gazhiley09:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it is a busy picture. Google map [8] and satellite view [9] identify the hospital (basically the bright buildings laid out at 40 degrees). On the left side, the half round/cylindrical building is not part of the hospital nor anything on its left. In the background, the high-rise building and anything behind it and around it is not part of the hospital either. I think a little bit of cropping will be an improvement. Bammesk (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One of the best-looking carte de visites I've seen in quite some time. Nadar did an amazing job with the technology of the time at capturing a clear, crisp photo of a very notable composer. Replaced a terrible reproduction of the same image.
Support – Per nom – although more contrast with upper BG would enhance photo (but might not be considered Kosher). Sca (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2016 at 09:13:55 (UTC)
Original – Film flyer for Supir Istimewa, a 1954 Persari production which follows a man who passes as a chauffeur so he can win the love of a young village woman
Reason
High quality scan of a flyer for a notable film. Fortunately this one was in pretty good shape when I bought it.
Oppose - Lacks the "wow" factor I expect in a good movie poster. Scan is technically good, but the photos and presentation not on par with the previous posters. --Janke | Talk12:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a poster. It's a flyer, made to distribute quickly and cheaply. As for "wow"... the differences between Commons' and En-Wiki's FP processes have been discussed to death. Doubt more discussion would do any good here. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning support: There's a lot of dirt spots, particularly the woman on the right has a lot of brown dots and white fibres on her, the man next to her less so but still a few smaller ones. Those seem like they should be cleaned. Adam Cuerden(talk)16:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see where the quality of the content is considered quite poor, but the quality of the scan and the EV is quite high, thus my support. Mattximus (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2016 at 16:19:30 (UTC)
Original – Jacques Offenbach c. 1860s, in a photograph by noted French photographer Nadar
Reason
This is slightly undersized (1,433 × 2,200 pixels, as cropped), but the original image is 6 cm wide, and I think that includes the paper backing, so - depending on that - this represents a resolution of between about 600dpi and 950dpi, which seems quite reasonable. The picture is high quality, indeed, arguably it's the iconic photo of Offenbach.
Weak Support ALT Looks a bit overexposed at full zoom - the branches appear almost bright white. But overall the picture works, and looks lovely. Preference of ALT due to successful improvement with the corrections... gazhiley09:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I like the subject and the composition, but the biggest fault I can see is that it's way oversharpened. It hurts my eyes to view full size. Ðiliff«»(Talk)16:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not technically perfect, but also not bad. For a deceased musician, the minor issues - some graininess, unnecessary black-and-white - can easily be forgiven.
Oppose - A modern black and white photo is always going to be questionable regarding EV, however that can indeed be forgiven on a case by case basis. In this case though it's not very sharp, as mentioned it's fairly grainy and it appears to just be a grayscale version of this colour picture [10]. For a modern photo not FP material for me. - Wolftick (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2016 at 22:49:24 (UTC)
Original – Lewis T. Powell, photographed by Alexander Gardner on the deck of the USS Saugus in 1865, shortly before his trial and execution on conspiracy charges.Alt
Reason
Powell was executed for his attempted assassination of William Henry Seward on the night of Lincoln's assassination. Famously photographed by Alexander Gardner while awaiting trial, the 21-year-old is best remembered for his serene calm and matinée idol good looks (the most familiar image of the series has him staring directly at the camera). From a technical standpoint, this is a very clean image given the long exposure time required. Contrary to popular belief, Powell was photographed not in his cell but in full sunlight, on deck of the USS Saugus.
Because 1) Wikipedia does not have a qualifying FP high resolution version of it, and 2) it's not as well-focused or composed, with Powell's hands and head moving slightly during the exposure. Both versions were widely circulated and contributed to Powell's notoriety after his death. There are several more in the Gardner series, including Powell dressed in the clothes and hat he wore when attacking Seward. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If a 20.2mb or 86.6mb TIFF file of that more famous portrait can be converted and uploaded to Wikipedia, it's available from the Library of Congress. I'm not technically able to do that from my computer, but would happily support that if it were nominated instead—would the damage to the glass plate disqualify it, or would EV value transcend the problem? (Also, he did move slightly during the exposure.) There's a brief, incomplete discussion of the series here; it is interesting that Alexander Gardner took more time and effort creating Powell's portrait than those of the other conspirators. By the way, Roland Barthes included the more famous Powell portrait in Camera Lucida, with the caption "he is dead and he is going to die". I would love that at least one of Gardner's portraits of Powell achieve FP. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why one might prefer the less famous profile shot. I think I might actually agree aesthetically. However, I do think the greater EV of the more famous portrait probably trumps it from a FP pov. I've converted, uploaded and added as alt the equivalent library of congress version for consideration (@ User:Crisco 1492, User:Vesuvius Dogg ) - Wolftick (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: damage: Restoration would definitely be necessary (for both the profile and the face-on shot). The face-on shot would need a bit more work, but it is doable. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The image can use a restoration, it has lots of spots. I can clean it up but not soon. If it isn't restored by Adam or others, I will clean it up on January 16/17. Bammesk (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look. Though whether it'll matter we'll have to see - January is a dead period on Wikipedia, so if it fails to get a quorum now, don't be disheartened, just wait a month and renominate. Adam Cuerden(talk)05:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Are we moving toward consensus that the more famous Alt image (above) should be considered for FP, if it can be successfully restored? It's a big ask but the effort would be appreciated. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To participants in this nom Vesuvius Dogg, Adam Cuerden, Janke, Crisco 1492, Wolftick: based on your participation in this nom, I assume you are Ok with the soft (out of focus) face of the subject in these images in relation to a FP nomination. If that is not the case, please clarify. (because if the images are disqualified to start with, then there is no point in restoring them as the fine details don't show in a normal wiki article rendition). Bammesk (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Dogg. We can't hold photographs from 1865 to the same standards as photographs from 150 years later. The technology has developed in leaps and bounds in that time. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problems here with the image quality regarding FP status. Given it's age it is very good. Indeed personally I would support the image without restoration given the likely age of the damage, it's integrity to the plate and it's overall lack of impact on the clarity or EV of the image. However I do realise this opinion probably does not match with consensus and I would likely support a sympathetic restoration too. - Wolftick (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Profile – restoration
I uploaded a restored profile image. I tried not to deviate from the original. I don't have lots of experience in restoration. Input and critique is welcomed from everyone, particularly from Adam who does so much quality work with images. Bammesk (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I like both images, so I am inclined to volunteer to do the face-on shot too. But would the face-on shot pass muster if I do it? Obviously a hard answer is impossible, no one has a crystal ball. These are a lot of work, especially for my level of experience. If there is (or be) positive feedback based on where the profile restoration is (or even feedback on what needs to be improved on it), then I can repeat that level of work on the face-on shot. But if the profile restoration is a dead cat (so to speak!, I love cats, and dogs too!) then there is no point in me doing the restoring. Bammesk (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had fun restoring the profile shot, so I am happy. I also know it is important to get the quality right (in addition to the fun part). Plus I know my experience is not in par with other contributors such as Adam. These images deserve attention, so whatever the consensus is, I am happy with that. Bammesk (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support and am grateful for your work. You've done a fine job on the profile; I think a light restoration on the other image is appropriate and probably sufficient. I am still hopeful that both images can be promoted, if not in the next few days then in another month when they are re-nominated (January being very slow). The subject gets under your skin, no? Let's hope others weigh in. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2016 at 00:34:05 (UTC)
Original – Fear and Desire (1953) is the first feature film directed by Stanley Kubrick. He hated this anti-war film with a vengeance and tried to have all copies destroyed, but it has survived and is in the public domain because the copyright wasn't extended.
Reason
Quality issues have been addressed with this upload by Yann. Now impeccable.
Oppose - The new 720p version appears to be a direct rip from Youtube that includes the 1966 interview before the film. As far as I know this interview is not public domain which is why it was removed from the previous version. Also, while this is less critical, I think a non-pillarboxed version of the file would be preferable. - Wolftick (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I prefer the original monochrome version. It doesn't look odd to me and it seems like it is a matter of personal preference where the original should be favoured per WP:VERIFY - Wolftick (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The original is a very light scan from a source (the LoC) known to have poor colour fidelity and contrast. Further, it's a monochrome file, meaning that the subtle shades even black and white film has are lost. Adam Cuerden(talk)19:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to sympathetic restoration of source where it is clearly lacking, but I cannot support going from this: [11] to this: [12]. That is just adding yellow to a perfectly acceptable greyscale image that is most likely and to the extent that it can be verified a fairly accurate depiction of the original. - Wolftick (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but unless you have a verifiable source in this specific case the monochrome version should be favoured per WP:VERIFY: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.". The LoC would generally be considered a reliable source - Wolftick (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The file is explicitly a monochrome file. It ain't a source for nothin' colour-balance-wise; It literally can't be. The information's been stripped. Adam Cuerden(talk)20:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...Show me one non-monochrome file of Van Vechten's that isn't slightly yellow, and you have a point. Otherwise, you're basically stating this should be considered an exception. Here's the complete set! [13]Adam Cuerden(talk)20:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My point is not that you are incorrect. My point is that you do not have a source for the changes specific to this image other than your own understanding of what the image should look like according to other, different images. My reading is that adding colour where there is none is different to "colour/exposure correction" per WP:FP? #8 and so this falls foul of WP:V and WP:OR irrespective. - Wolftick (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...I think... that's... I don't even know what to say to that. I can't follow your logic here, where you seem to think that an image known to have no information as to warmness or coolness of the greys - it was reduced to greyscale after all, which cannot store tone, greyscale has no information but lightness and darkness of each pixel, there's no tone information - is more correct of a guide than images that actually contain the information, by the same photographer. Adam Cuerden(talk)22:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's fairly simple. I'm saying there is no suitable guide that doesn't require original research and lack verifiability. The original, while lacking colour information, is at least from a reliable source - Wolftick (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not unthinkable for what we'd consider to be "reliable" sources to be wrong. Both scans of Tobias and the Angel are unaltered from the National Gallery of Art (albeit each scan is from a different part of their website), and that's at a stalemate now: we know that one of the two is more accurate than the other, but we don't know which. Then there's the Yorck project scans, which were originally taken at face value as reliable but are now so infamously inaccurate that they have been widely replaced. If sources are known to have issues, even if they are ostensibly accurate in some cases, we have the right to exercise editorial discretion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Using editorial discretion to weight conflicting sources per Tobias and the Angel is very much part of Wikipedia's core content policy. However the source image in question is not "wrong". It is instead lacking information, namely colour. As far as I know there is no additional colour source for this image, so any addition of colour is against WP:VERIFY: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". ...However, I've since looked at WP:GL/PHOTO... and, well, I'm out. - Wolftick (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – In general I agree with Wolftick's point. In this particular case, the color addition is subtle, not excessive, it is based on similar images by the same photographer which is a guide or template, even though it is not a reliable source. In this particular case I don't see any harm. Bammesk (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Technical quality just beats out the fact that these are used only in a gallery for me. If we had an article on this set, it'd have my full support. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've made these the lede images for each Evangelist's article—nice to have a matching set! However, the measuring lines at bottom left do rather spoil the images for me; could they be re-drawn in white on black? Ham II (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jebulon needs to be asked, but he doesn't edit here much. I am asking him on Commons, but it may need to be uploaded separately, as these are FP on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for nomination and comments. I think Chris pointed the difference between FPC in Commons and here. An article only about this set would be a non sense IMO and quasi impossible, as these pictures are not related together in the book, only by me. The scale: the black bg is not part of the work, and can be cropped out. Of course the scale too. Thanks again for interest.--Jebulon (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2016 at 15:59:14 (UTC)
Original – a caption for the image, providing adequate context for voters on WP:FPC
Reason
View from Stalheim (Fra Stalheim) by Norwegian painter Johan Christian Claussen Dahl, oil on canvas, 1842. As Yngvadottir wrote=" It is a major work of Romantic nationalism and has become a national icon. It is regarded as one of Dahl's best works.
Oppose - Appears to have been shot through the glass without an appropriate filter. Evan's work shows us that much better results are possible if we just work a bit harder. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree. Obviously it's pretty hard to get a really good shot through glass and this one is definitely useful, but as a product shot, it falls a bit short. Ðiliff«»(Talk)16:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – A historic moment, certainly, but I'd rather see a shot showing at least some of Ms. Malone's face. And contrast issues here lessen EV. Sca (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright issue is understood, of course. I'm not saying the pic shouldn't be used at all, just that it doesn't seem quite up to FP/Main Page standards of clarity and EV.
Re "the stand," I don't see George Corley Wallace here. Sca (talk)
I don't know absolutely, of course, but I don't think so. I remember Wallace quite well from the Civil Rights era (and the 1968 election), and back then he always wore his hair drenched in Vitalis or some such and slicked back, 1950s U.S. style. This guy's hair is shorter, combed differently and not greasy. Sca (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's not a perfect photo, but we generally make reasonable exceptions in the face of historically important photographs, and I think this one has reasonable cause for consideration under those exceptions. It gives a feel of the event very well, even the flaws arguably highlight the chaotic nature of it. Adam Cuerden(talk)18:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Awkward composition, main persons either not in picture or shown almost from the back. With all those photographers there, there surely are better photos of this incident? --Janke | Talk18:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – It shows a historic moment well. This has all the elements: the door she was forbidden to enter, law officer, deputy attorney general, the escort, the media. The significance of the moment is in the story, not the individuals or her face, this image tells the story well. (Wallace had left and wasn't around for this shot [14]) Bammesk (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I hear the objections, but think the array of press is rather interesting in contrast to Malone's obscured face. A civil rights pioneer, yes, but she was also a symbol. The photograph both returns her to anonymity while instructing us that the historic struggle was bigger than hers alone. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still trying to figure out if Grandes in Les Grandes Baigneuses means "large", as in "The Large Bathers" (or the large women), or "grand", or "wonderful", something like "The Wonderful (Lovely) Bathers", or even whether it was a reference to the large size of the painting, which is 3' 10" × 5' 5". In English, "The Large (Women) Bathers" has a kind of clunky sound. I'm wondering if Grandes was more a reference to the sculptural quality of the women than a reference to their size. – Corinne (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Corinne, Now I see that the article says models for "the women standing in the stream in the background posed in the large." Rather mystified by that phrase – could it simply mean outdoors? Sca (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sca I was mystified by it, too. See Talk:Les Grandes Baigneuses (Renoir)#Description, item (b), and Coldcreation's reply. Maybe it does mean "outdoors". Isn't there another phrase used to describe painting outdoors? There's en plein air, which I guess means "in the open air", or just "in the open". Perhaps en plein air was translated "in the large" instead of "in the open" (or [in the] outdoors). Now I'm wondering if I should go ahead and change "in the large" to "in the open" or "outdoors". Corinne (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't. Translated to French, au large, means offshore in English. I've never heard such an expression (in the context of modeling) used in the arts. Coldcreation (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh...when I view that,it appears to be titled 'A Meat Stall With The Holy Family Giving Alms'-not the most accurate(or appealing)description of Susanna having a splash about. Lemon martini (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGrandes almost never means fat. It could mean tall, great, big, etc. It probably refers to the size of the painting. Cézanne made a painting with the same name.– Yann (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A little small compared to our other painting scans. Did Google do this one when they were at Yale? If so, there may be another version on Commons. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Yale may have this as the full download size, but that doesn't mean this is the largest available. Since we have a plethora of paintings come through here, many of which are of considerably higher resolution (even when the paintings are smaller than this one), I'm not quite sure this current digitization is up to FPC snuff. Yes, the criteria only stipulates 1500 * 1500, but the bar's been set very high for paintings. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see this is the best available. It's only 100PPI by my quick calculation, which isn't really enough to my eye. I think pixels per inch is more relevant than absolute resolution when it comes to digitisations of paintings. This resolution would be fine for a smaller work but for this size, while a nice clear image, the detail is rather limited in comparison with the best images available on wikipedia. - Wolftick (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The size of the tif/jpeg is 3,000 × 2,005 and this is for the 30x20 inch painting, not the wall size at the Wadsworth. I noticed Trumbull's Declaration of Independence was 3,000 × 1,970 for a painting 18x12 feet. But this was approved in 2008. Could this be a question of the conversion quality from the tif? Thanks. Zeete (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have opposed, quite frankly, and that 2008 promotion was well before our plethora of painting FPs. This painting is roughly the same size, but more than 4 times the resolution in digital form.
Besides the obvious importance of the subject, this is one of a VERY few images from the 19th century/early 20th century in which a dark-skinned black man looks like a dark-skinned black man, which I think is important in itself - the tendency is to overexpose the image, which brings out the shadow detail on their face at the cost of accuracy. Photographer is notable, though there isn't room in her article for the image. On a related subject, it may be this is one of the rare images where we want to promote a crop; I wouldn't say no if that's the consensus.
Comment - I really would like to see at least a little detail on the shadow side - is it possible, or is the original totally 0% there? --Janke | Talk09:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: OK, if that old version is a scan of the same original, then something inbetween those two would be best. I neither like the completely detail-less half face, nor the blown-out shirt & cheek. I could try doing a combo of the two files, if no-one else cares to experiment... Thus, Oppose for the time being. --Janke | Talk12:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can't change the race of George Washington Carver... That's... incredibly problwematic to our portrayal of history.
That said - commons has been having some weird displlay bugs of late. Can you please download the image and view it in ann off-browser viewer for now? Adam Cuerden(talk)14:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Contrast issues in photographing black subjects are well known – particularly when the background also is dark. This pic would have to be lightened to at least some degree to be useful in an encyclopedia, IMO. (I tried it on my own computer, using "fill light," and that seemed to work well. There was no hint of disguising the subject's race/ethnicity.) Sca (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Lacking facial detail. And nothing to to do with the race of the subject. If I was in the same room I would expect to be able to make out detail on both sides of their face if the room was reasonably well lit. This photo is either poorly lit, under exposed or both, meaning this is not possible. This limits EV and is a reflection of the quality of the image, not an accurate depiction the skin tone of the subject. - Wolftick (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2016 at 22:39:49 (UTC)
Original – American actor, singer and director René Auberjonois
Reason
I came across this a few days ago and wondered if it met the FP criteria. Then after seeing the photographer has other works already at FP, I felt confident enough to nominate. From the looks of things, this seems to have a bit of a modification history with editors lightening/darkening it, but the current version is certainly the best of the bunch. Miyagawa (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2016 at 07:04:55 (UTC)
Original – Lauderdale Tower, one of the four residential high-rises of London's Barbican Estate.
Reason
High-quality image that shows how an architectural style widely reviled today was originally meant to convey a welcoming sense of strength and protection
Support as nominator If it looks familiar, it's probably because you remember seeing it on your way to Wikimania 2014 when you got off the Tube at Barbican and looked up – Daniel Case (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the building, and the photo to a point, but I really don't think the golden hour shot is ideal. Brutal should be grey :) - Wolftick (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of thought so too, until I looked up from the Tube station entrance and saw this. The concrete is more brown than grey. A lot more. Daniel Case (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree concrete can and does colour, but in most photos of this building and in person, also typical of the material, it is at least grey-brown and far less yellow. I'm not asking for monochrome but I really don't think a golden hour shot does justice to the palette that typically characterises brutalist architecture. - Wolftick (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To me this is actually a reminder of brutalism's origins, how the architects thought that the raw concrete would seem earthy, inviting and protective—because most of them were living in the sunny south of France at the time, and didn't stop to think about what raw concrete looks like in places with chronically overcast skies, ironically where most such buildings were ultimately erected. Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a good photo of a relative tricky to photograph building given its crowded location, and has strong EV. I'm going to go out on a limb here and also say that it's a mildly attractive building - that said, I do live on the other side of the world from the thing so don't see it very often! Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The estate is not just this tower. And the time of day that this picture was taken misleads the viewer as to the actual colour of the buildings. - hahnchen21:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2016 at 11:06:21 (UTC)
Original – Comet C/2013 US10 Catalina in Virgo constellation just before dawn of 09 Dec 2015. One can clearly see its two tails. The first one (upper left corner) is a narrow gaseous tail directed against the sun by the solar wind. The second one (lower right corner) is a widespread dust tail aimed along the comet's orbit. Image shot from Karabi-Yaila (1000m above sea level), Crimea, Russia. Shot with Canon 600D DSLR mounted on Celestron 8" SCT with focal reducer (focal length 1280mm) on Celestron AVX mount with NexGuide autoguide on 80mm Guidescope. Stack of 5 single exposures 5 minutes processed in PixInsight+Photoshop.
Support as nominator Not as impressive as NASA images, but a very good work for an amateur astronomer. It also could be useful to illustrate other articles. – Yann (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File description says: stack of 5 exposures over 5 minutes. I think those are bad sensor pixels. The 5 images were aligned later in software because the stars move over 5 minutes. So the bad pixels streak like that. Bammesk (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Author) Yes, those are hot pixels. I used dark frames (as well as bias and flat frames) to calibrate every light frame before stacking them. Unfortunately sometimes it's not enough. I'll fix those and post updated image. BTW, it's 5 frames with 5 minutes exposure for each frame (I've fixed the description). It's quite difficult multistep process to stack a comet image, because a comet moves very significantly relative to background stars over half an hour. --Alexander Vasenin (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ever really want to do something, but some sneaky bastard cunning got in and did it first, the swine? Well, I call Jebulon out as that extremely talented swine. ;) Eyeing both versions, I think, somewhat unusually, the crop is the right choice for once. The awkward framing of the original version, like a 1950s television turned on its side, really doesn't work so well.
Really? Mind you, I'm often fairly ruthless with removing it. It's often a distraction. Here, though, it's a very minor part of the image, and not particularly distracting. Adam Cuerden(talk)02:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... guess my eyes are playing tricks on me. I tried reducing the saturation of cyans, blues, and magentas in PS, but it had little to no effect on the section. Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for the nomination. Maybe this crop is more useful for an encyclopedical use, but I prefer in "Commons" the original version: the crop losses informations. I'm not a fan of the new color neither. Anyway, congratulations to Pierre Petit, who was really an excellent portraitist.--Jebulon (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – theoretically nominations should only be started after at least 7 days of being placed in an article, but such a large upgrade seems uncontroversial enough. sst✈13:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SSTflyer: fortunately the Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria page says: "It is preferable to wait a reasonable period of time (at least 7 days) after the image is added to the article before nominating it, though this may be ignored in obvious cases, such as replacing a low-resolution version of an image with a higher resolution of the same image." While this is a different image, I think that the change is within the spirit of the criteria. (: --Pine✉18:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2016 at 00:25:08 (UTC)
Original – Flyer for Lagu Kenangan, a 1953 film directed by L. Inata for Djamaluddin Malik's Persari. It follows the domestic troubles of a composer and his wife.
Reason
High quality scan of a contemporary flyer for this film. The last nomination fell one support short.
I do not have any references to answer the question, sadly. There were A3-size posters by 1968, but the ones I've seen looked like this (i.e. not the kind of film posters you're thinking of, and too much text to be PD under Indonesian law). Flyers were widely used for advertising into the 1990s (my Flickr feed has quite a few from the '70s and '80s, which sadly can't be freely used; this one is one of my favourites, from 1979). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It turned out a high-res version of this does exist, although the brightness and contrast asked to be adjusted (somewhat arbitrarily, the original is linked in the source).
Weak support – Intriguing. But the target article is rather stubby (125 words). Perhaps pic could be added to the more extensive Alectryomancy, which describes the practice more fully. Sca (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A fine example of WWI Canadian patriotic art from an otherwise unrepresented artist. Had four support earlier this year, during the dead period at FPC.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2016 at 18:29:54 (UTC)
Original – "Some older photographic lenses were produced with glass elements containing small amounts of thorium. If stored in the dark for prolonged periods of time, these lenses can experience what is commonly called “yellowing”. While some photographers enjoy the effect the yellowed glass has on their photographs (it acts similar to a weak yellow filter), others prefer to reverse it by exposing the lens to a UV light source." The right lens is included for comparison and shows no signs of yellowing. -- description by User:El Grafo
Reason
Interesting illustration of this phenomenon. This is a "valued image" on Commons with a size of 4,734 × 1,702 pixels.
Comment – Nit — Lenses, not being sentient beings, can't "experience" anything. (Also, on my screen, the yellowing of the lens at far right isn't readily apparent.) Sca (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In most dictionaries "experience" can mean "encounter or undergo" applying to non-sentient entities. Also the lens on the far right (according to the file description) shows no signs of yellowing for comparison. Maybe the caption could be improved to indicate this? - Wolftick (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I would say it's in fairly commonly (mis(?) :-) )used as a synonym for "undergo" for non-sentient things though. Your mileage may vary as to how important that is. OED has [with object] and "the company is experiencing difficulties"[15] but I'd agree undergo is better. - Wolftick (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say this is one of the two best-composed images in Martin Luther King (The one with LBJ is also good.) A fine view of King, though at least one of the other people (Mathew Ahmann, the white man to the left of and behind King]]) is also notable - though the composition highlights King, and so has the most value for articles on him.
@Brandmeister: While the second has good potential as a lead image (the current is a colourised copy of a rather badly-composed photo), this image, showing him at a non-violent protest, is uniquely suited to illustrate "Non-violence" (at least, of the images suggested) Adam Cuerden(talk)20:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support – I think that this one is better than those mentioned by Brandmeister. It's a pity that the resolution is not higher. Yann (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Another historic moment, but rather a jumble of faces. Do we have IDs for those other than MLK and Mathew Ahmann? (Ahmann is at King's right.) And don't forget the Jr. in Martin Luther King. Sca (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly keen on the image compositionally but I think this [19] may be the best available purely as a clear picture of Martin Luther King, Jr. - Wolftick (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.Blick_vom_Fernsehturm.2.09011281.ajb.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_edit.jpg)
_1.jpg)
Done - I've uploaded 2800px wide png version! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
_mating_1.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_by_Nadar.jpg)
.jpg)
_1895-6.jpg)
.jpg)
Saint Matthew
Saint Mark
Saint Luke
Saint John
Sca (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Sca (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Qantas_Boeing_747-400_VH-OJU_over_Starbeyevo_Kustov_-_EDIT_-_MORE_LEAD_ROOM.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/f/f0/20151214190412!H._Piffard_-_The_Thin_Red_Line.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_1.jpg){kind=link}
_1.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Joseph_W._Simpson_-_Maisie_Phillips._Her_Book_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jules_Massenet_by_Eug%C3%A8ne_Pirou,_edit.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://fanart.tv/fanart/music/9be2a5ac-8201-489b-b5f6-91f958bf9060/artistthumb/tour-ali-farka-51508fc34f1a8.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/1/14/20160112181851!William_Grant_Still_by_Carl_Van_Vechten.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/William_Grant_Still_by_Carl_Van_Vechten.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
_-_NARA_-_542015_-_Restoration.jpg)
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._and_Lyndon_Johnson.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USMC-09611.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:March_on_washington_Aug_28_1963.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Martin_Luther_King_Jr_NYWTS.jpg){kind=link}
