Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words", the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria.

Promoting an image

If you believe an image should be featured, create a subpage (use the "For Nominations" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section.

For promotion, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets.

All users may comment. However, only those who have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and with at least 100 edits will be included in the numerical count. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. Nominations started in December are given three extra days, due to the holidays slowing down activity here.

The archive contains all opinions and comments collected for candidate nominations and their nomination results.

If you nominate an image here, please consider also uploading and nominating it at Commons to help ensure that the pictures can be used not just in the English Wikipedia but on all other Wikimedia projects as well.

Delisting an image

A featured picture can be nominated for delisting if you feel it no longer lives up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Create a subpage (use the "For Delists" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section.

Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture.

For delisting, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures, except that:.If the image to be delisted is not used in any articles by the time of closure, it must be delisted. If it is added to articles during the nomination, at least one week's stability is required for the nomination to be closed as "Kept". The nomination may be suspended if a week hasn't yet passed to give the rescue a chance.

Outside of the nominator, all voters are expected to have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and to have made a minimum of 100 edits. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. As with regular nominations, delist nominations are given three extra days to run if started in December.

  • Note that delisting an image does not mean deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article(s).
Shortcuts:

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:
Step 1:
Evaluate

Evaluate the merit of a nomination against the featured picture criteria. Most users reference terms from this page when evaluating nominations.
Step 2:
Create a subpage
For Nominations

To create a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates for your nomination, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the field below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button.


For Delists (or Delist & Replace)

To create a subpage for your delist, add a title for the image you want to delist/replace in the field below and click the "Create new delist nomination" button.
Step 3:
Transclude and link

Transclude the newly created subpage to the Featured picture candidate list (direct link).

How to comment for Candidate Images

  • Write Support, if you approve of the picture. A reason is optional.
  • Write Oppose, followed by your reasoning, if you disapprove of the picture. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. If your concern is one that can only be addressed by the creator, and if they haven't nominated or commented on the image, and if they are a Wikipedian, you should notify them directly.
  • You can weak support or weak oppose instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion.
    • To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
  • If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case.
Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly.
Prior to giving an opinion, the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution) in an image editing program. Please note that the images are only displayed at thumbnail size on this page. The thumbnail links to the image description page which, in turn, links to the high-resolution version.

How to comment for Delist Images

  • Write Keep, followed by your reasons for keeping the picture.
  • Write Delist, followed by your reasons for delisting the picture.
  • Write Delist and Replace if you believe the image should be replaced by a better picture.
  • You can weak keep, weak delist or weak delist and replace instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion.
    • To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person.

You may find the glossary useful when you encounter acronyms or jargon in other voters' comments. You can also link to it by using {{FPCgloss}}.

Editing candidates

If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do not overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g., add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination. Edits should be appropriately captioned in sequential order (e.g., Edit 1, Edit 2, etc), and describe the modifications that have been applied.

Is my monitor adjusted correctly?

Gray contrast test image.svg
In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting.
Highlight test image.svg
Displays also differ greatly in their ability to show highlight detail. There are light grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display highlight detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings (probably reduce the contrast setting). Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal highlight detail. Please take this into account when voting.
Colortest.png
On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background.
Note that on most consumer LCD displays (laptop or flat screen), viewing angle strongly affects these images. Correct adjustment on one part of the screen might be incorrect on another part for a stationary head position. Click on the images for more technical information. If possible, calibration with a hardware monitor calibrator is recommended.
To see recent changes, purge the page cache.
FPCs needing feedback
view · edit

Current nominations[edit]

Indian Rabbit[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2016 at 05:57:59 (UTC)

Original – A rare picture of White colored with black patches, Indian Rabbit having glittering red eyes
Reason
A rare picture of White colored with black patches, Indian Rabbit having glittering red eyes
Articles in which this image appears
Domestic rabbit
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator
Md iet
  • Support as nominator – Md iet (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose and Speedy close - Lighting is flat, resolution is below minimum (1500px each side), background is messy, eye is red, out-of-focus, noisy. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose and Speedy close - per above.--Godot13 (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose and Speedy close per WP:SNOW --Janke | Talk 07:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)



Priscilla Horton, later Mrs. German Reed[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2016 at 04:17:39 (UTC)

Original – Priscilla Horton in the role of Ariel
Reason
Notable for several reasons: a highly accomplished Shakespearian actress in her youth, and a theatrical innovator with her husband later on who both encouraged the creation of and premièred rôles in several important early operas by important writers and composers of 19th century Britain; for example, W.S. Gilbert's first big hit outside of pantomimes, Ages Ago had her in it and was at her and her husband's theatre; other major writers and composers for them included F. C. Burnand, and Arthur Sullivan (though she didn't act in Cox and Box as it has no female roles) Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Articles in which this image appears
Priscilla Horton
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator
Richard James Lane et al; restored by Adam Cuerden



Ferdinand VII of Spain[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2016 at 23:50:34 (UTC)

Original – Portrait of Ferdinand VII of Spain by Goya
Reason
High ev as lead image and good scan of the painting. Missed promotion by 1 vote in the last nomination
Articles in which this image appears
Ferdinand VII of Spain, etc..
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty and nobility
Creator
Francisco Goya



Field of Mars (Saint Petersburg)[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2016 at 23:43:08 (UTC)

Original – An aerial view of the Field of Mars in Saint Petersburg, Russia.
Reason
High quality, high EV (complete view of the Field of Mars)
Articles in which this image appears
Field of Mars (Saint Petersburg)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator
Godot13
  • Support as nominator – Godot13 (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Great image but why the large variation in sharpness, especially the right side? I am curious, was it shot from a tower or airborne? Bammesk (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Bammesk- Thanks. The main focal point was the center of the Field of Mars and f8 might not have been quite enough for the far surrounding areas. I was trying to balance shutter speed (1/400 IMO is very slow for aerial shooting) and potential grain. This was a difficult one to crop. I didn't want to cut off the large square building on the far right along with the base of the bridge (for aesthetics). By the same token, keeping the Church of the Spilled Blood (top center) seemed like a good idea. This was shot from a helicopter, restricted to flying over the river only, at a minimum altitude (in the city) of roughly 500 meters. It was intermittently overcast with some turbulence.--Godot13 (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
      • My browser display didn't do it justice at full size, looked at it again in my photo software and the sharpness looks Ok. I love the composition, the EV and everything else. Support. Bammesk (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC) (I just saw it was a zoom lens)
        • Many thanks for the kind words.--Godot13 (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I did a little selective sharpening on the right side (with the unsharp mask tool in GIMP) and it was an improvement, just saying. Bammesk (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Jobas (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Though I agree, F11 would have been better. ISO 400 on my 60D is still perfectly acceptable (not sure about 5DS), and the 5DS you were using would give you lots of wiggle room resolution-wise if you needed to use an even higher ISO. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)



Lies Noor[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2016 at 06:28:25 (UTC)

Original – Lies Noor, an Indonesian film actress, in c. 1956
ALT - Name removed
Reason
High quality image of this promising young actress who died at a young age.
Articles in which this image appears
Lies Noor
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator
Djakartawood Studios, restored by  — Chris Woodrich (talk)
  • Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Signature on photo, mediocre detail at full res., contrast issues, promotional. (Target article = 480 words, raising question of notability.) Sca (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
"Moderate resolution": I don't know what world you're living in, but 10.4 megapixels for a postcard-sized photograph is far from "Mediocre". This was scanned at 900 PPI.
"Contrast issues": What, exactly, are you referring to? There are no blown highlights, nor are there any clipped shadows.
"Promotional": For an actress who has been dead for fifty-five years? Really? Are you going to oppose a picture of Notre Dame next, because it's also used for tourism?
"Questionable notability": Cover of multiple magazines (Varia, Minggu Pagi, etc.), demanded - and received - large wages for the time (I have a menu from c. 1955... Rp 10 would have gotten you a full meal at a good restaurant. Multiply that by 750 or 1000), coverage in numerous contemporary sources, including obituaries from two sources cited in the article alone, funeral attended by A-list Indonesian celebrities. She clearly passes WP:N. The "Sca bar" you wish to implement is, thankfully, not policy. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
As for article length: 480 words is longer than the article for Parthenos sylvia (317 words) and The Accolade (painting) (340 words), yet I don't see you claiming either of them is non-notable. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Sca – Jobas (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I disagree with Sca on all their points (it has great contrast/resolution, good EV, not promotional) but I agree about the signature, I also find it distracting. Considering the page is not about the photograph itself, but about the actor, would it be acceptable/possible to remove it? If it was about the photograph then of course I can see the argument of leaving it as it was intended. Mattximus (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It would be possible, and I will do so (reluctantly) as a separate file. I subscribe to Adam Cuerden's approach of leaving well enough alone (I've only seen him remove a watermark once, and that begrudgingly).  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Support alt. Mattximus (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't speak Indonesian, but a search for Elisa Firmansjah Noor and Lies Noor on Indonesian Wiki failed to find an article. Quick Googling of her name yielded one hit – the English WP article targeted here.
Contrast: Poor contrast with backdrop, inky shadowing of hair.
Promotional: "Indonesian actress Lies Noor (c. 1956) in a photograph from Djakartawood." – Sca (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • She died in 1961, and Indonesian film history is not well represented online, particularly for people who died before Misbach Yusa Biran began actually trying to catalogue that history. The Indonesian Wikipedia is certainly no measure: less than 0.5% of the editors there are willing to actually go to a library and crack open a book (hence why the majority of their Featured Articles are translated from ours). Their articles on numerous actors from the '50s are far below ours in terms of quality (compare A. Hamid Arief and id:A. Hamid Arief, or Indriati Iskak and id:Indriati Iskak). Your inability to use the internet (the majority of the sources cited are online; you need only follow the links) does not render her non-notable.
To the best of my knowledge, Djakartawood has been defunct since the late 1950s. Crediting them on the image page (not in the article - indeed, they aren't credited in the article) is simple acknowledgement of the photographer, and is no different than crediting Mathew Brady for images of Civil War-era generals. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Captivating image. Not everything is to do with resolution. No comment on the other issues. 109.146.248.82 (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – about promotional: we do have promotional (or publicity) FP images [1], [2], [3], [4]. Bammesk (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I see the restorations but the dark areas look dusty still. I don't like the pose and wish the shades of gray were more distinct, but can't ask for everything in a historic image. Looks better without the signature. My concern is the dusty dark areas. Bammesk (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The pose is pretty standard for her publicity stills (see the category). I'll touch up the shadows when I get home. Crisco 1492 mobile (talk) 06:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support ALT – Bammesk (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support ALT Even if promotional, this is type of portraits I can accept, unlike some modern generic promos churned out by PR agencies. Also improves coverage on such little-known women. The only thing that bothers is her missing birth year. I suspect it's the 1940s. Brandmeistertalk 09:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Problem with judging her age based on her being in school up through 1955 is that, during the Japanese occupation (42-45) and revolution (45-49), a lot of students were delayed. I'm still attempting to track down a biography outside of Varia (I have several editions of the contemporary film magazines Film Varia and Dunia Film, but my collection is spotty). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment on the watermark/signature issue... I think we have to ask what the picture is showing. If the picture is to display a work of art, removing the artist's signature would be deeply problematic, as it would change the nature of the work. Similar if it was to display the likes of a film poster. If, however, we have an image which, for our purposes, is fundamentally a picture of the original work's subject, rather than the work itself (as we have here), then I think we have to ask whether these signatures/watermarks are adding/detracting from the image. Given that we are (quite reasonably) so opposed to watermarks on contemporary images, I'm not sure I understand the anxiety about removing them from older images. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I've removed the watermark on the ALT. I think removing a 60+ year old watermark is significantly different than requiring that contributors of photographs to not include watermarks in the first place (I can't think of any examples where a Flickr user's watermarked image was send this way), particularly since the names appear to have been printed with the photograph (note how the hexagon pattern of File:Ermina Zaenah c 1955 (portrait) - before restoration.jpg is also found on her name). I am concerned about misrepresenting the photograph as a physical object. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Alt looks noticeably better, so I'll cancel my opposition. (I guess this amounts to weak support for Alt.)
I'm not going to reopen the old debate about notability, except to opine that in featuring any photo we should ask the question, why are we featuring this picture? Put another way, why would our audience, the readers of English Wiki, be interested in this picture and associated article?
I'll not say more about this nom. Sca (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • For me, I am interested in featuring images to educate viewers; to make viewers understand that there are more things in heaven and earth than their philosophies can imagine; to ensure that nobody, in the future, has to say "sometimes you can feel lazy and think we're so big we don't have to really know anything about other people". That's my reason. And it's clearly not shared by everyone. Hence why we use the criteria and not individual editing philosophies for determining featured pictures. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support alt meets all the criteria and none of the non-criteria used above as reasons for opposition or for watering-down a support convince me in the slightest. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 18:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


The Accolade[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2016 at 14:05:10 (UTC)

Original – The Accolade is a painting by British artist Edmund Leighton from 1901. It depicts an accolade, a ceremony to confer knighthood. The painting is housed in a private collection.
Reason
A bit more from Leighton. Good digitizations of private collection artworks seem to be particularly valuable, as they aren't that accessible by public.
Articles in which this image appears
The Accolade (painting), others
FP category for this image
Paintings
Creator
Edmund Leighton



Sarawak state assembly building[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2016 at 11:11:51 (UTC)

Original – The Sarawak state legislative assembly building. It is significant as the landmark of the capital city of Sarawak and the place where all state assemblymen from all over Sarawak come here to debate and passing state laws. The roof of the building is similar to "Terendak", a hat specifically made by the ethnic Melanau group in Sarawak.
Reason
The image is clear at depicting the state assembly building which has a unique architecture and its landscape . It is also representative of the state of Sarawak. The image was also a winner in the 2015 Wiki Loves Monuments competition.
Articles in which this image appears
Sarawak, Sarawak state assembly building, 砂拉越
FP category for this image
Places
Creator
Nickytmy
  • Support as nominator – Cerevisae (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose – good EV, but the sky looks a bit unnatural, at magnification of 200% or more, there are obvious artifacts where the sky meets the landscape. Bammesk (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Per Bammesk – Jobas (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose – Per Bammesk. To my eye the sky colors look oversaturated. Sca (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Horrible texture even at medium size. 109.146.248.82 (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)



Stade Français playing Racing Club de France[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2016 at 11:21:04 (UTC)

Original – Stade Français playing Racing Club de France from a 1906 calendar
Reason
A fine example of early-20th-century sporting artwork. First nomination failed to reach quorum, with no issues raised]]
Articles in which this image appears
Stade Français, Racing 92, Georges Scott, Pierre Guillemin
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport, probably?
Creator
Georges Scott restored by Adam Cuerden
  • Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just find (and I suspect, given the last nomination, some people feel the same) that the picture itself is pretty uninspiring. I'm also not convinced that there's oodles of EV. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    • It's not like we have a huge amount of early football pictures to choose from. Football history is a legitimate subject. . Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Of course football history is a legitimate subject, and I'll take your word for it that we don't have a lot of early football pictures to choose from. But that's not really the point. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with the above, but I will vote this way. I don't really see the EV as well. There is no page for the painting, and the pages it is found in do not make too much sense. If you want to illustrate the rugby team, a photograph would be more relevant. It is also in a player's page, but the image doesn't specify which player is him. I don't see what is gained by having (a rather bland) painting instead of a clear photograph, sorry. Mattximus (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
    • @Mattximus: You're presuming the existence of photographs, though, which probably don't exist. 1906 is probably way too early for cameras to do action shots, so, you're basically voting this down because you'd rather have something thatcannot possibly exist. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
For which page specifically? I offered different reasons why this image doesn't really offer EV in any of the pages it's currently found. Mattximus (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)+
It's the only illustration of historic uniform in Stade Français, for example. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
You're moving the target. Do you want this to be judged as an action shot or as an image of a historic uniform? We could surely have a much, much better image for showing historic uniform, and I'm not sure we urgently need an action shot... Josh Milburn (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
No I'm not: It's valuable on many fronts, and I cannot possibly fathom your response. We don't have colour photographs of the uniform from this period. Obviously. We don't have documentation of the state of the fields, of historic rugby football, or a number of other things, except for this image - and yet it somehow lacks EV. Even if this image is just a nice historic illustration, it gives a lot of incidental information about what rugby was like at the time, and is thus valuable; that it's fairly unique in doing so makes it more so, not less. A picture is worth a thousand words, as they say, and, especially in this case, there's a lot of incidental information in this image that a thousand words will never convey. For example, that one could wear a non-uniform cap; the depiction of a tackle; the shoes; the state of the field; the rugby ball; the colours of the uniforms; the style of them, seen from a variety of angles - all these are useful for anchoring a reader. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comments above. I've mulled it over, and I'm not convinced. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
    • And I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I've explained why I've reached the conclusion I have, and I'm not the only person who has reached a similar conclusion. Reasonable people can disagree; harrying opposers (and borderline twisting my words- I have neither claimed nor insinuated that football history is not a legitimate topic) just comes across as a chilling technique. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)::::And I agree, that was rude. I just don't understand the idea that historic imagery, particularly the only historica imagery in an article, not giving EV. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we can clarify? What specific encyclopedic entry does this provide EV for? It's in 4 pages at the moment. One is for a player that may or may not be illustrated in this image (so no EV there), the second is for the artist, but it's buried in the gallery among others (no EV there), and then it's in 2 modern teams where a photograph would be better. I agree with the above, if you want to illustrate historic uniform then a photograph would be better, if you want to talk about the "action", well none of the 4 pages actually talks about the historical aspect of the action, so I have to agree, I don't see any EV. Mattximus (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@Mattximus: But the modern teams are also historic teams. It's in their articles history sections. Further, there wouldn't be any historic photos from this period in colour, which really puts a damper on any historic photos of uniforms. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)



Parthenos sylvia[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2016 at 07:39:18 (UTC)

Original – Parthenos sylvia mud-puddling from a forest stream
Reason
Adds significant encyclopedic value to an articles
Articles in which this image appears
Parthenos sylvia, Mud-puddling
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator
Jeevan Jose
  • Support as nominator – Jee 07:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice, and I like the contrasting background. —Bruce1eetalk 07:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Jobas (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Very nice.--Godot13 (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)



Baby Huwae[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2016 at 04:36:04 (UTC)

Original – Baby Huwae in c. 1963. Born in Rotterdam, Huwae had moved to Indonesia by the 1950s and taken up modelling. She entered the film industry in 1958, and gained popularity following the success of Asrama Dara (Dormitory for Girls). Over the next several years she acted in a further five films and established a girl group, the Baby Dolls. However, after she married in 1960, Huwae focused on modelling. In the 1970s she worked as a fortune teller.
Reason
High quality image of this Indonesian singer and actress.
Articles in which this image appears
Baby Huwae
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator
Tati Photo Studios, restoration by  — Chris Woodrich (talk)
  • Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Per nom, another solid restoration. Mattximus (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Very, very nice. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Definitely the kind of nomination I can get behind. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Per all of the above.--Godot13 (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - --Marvellous Spider-Man 13:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Jobas (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)



Nominations — to be closed[edit]

Nominations in this category are older than ten days and are to be closed. New votes will no longer be accepted.

Older nominations requiring additional input from users[edit]

These nominations have been moved here because consensus is impossible to determine without additional input from those who participated in the discussion. Usually this is because there was more than one edit of the image available, and no clear preference for one of them was determined. If you voted on these images previously, please update your vote to specify which edit(s) you are supporting.

Closing procedure[edit]

A script is available that automates the majority of these tasks: User:Jujutacular/closeFPC

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} to the top of the section.
  3. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the September archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
  4. If the nominator is new to FPC, consider placing {{subst:NotpromotedFPC|Image name}} on their talk page. To avoid overuse, do not use the template when in doubt.
  5. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

When promoted, perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~
    • Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:
    Promoted File:FILENAME.JPG
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Add the image to:
  3. Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on top.
    The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Creator". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the creator does not have an article, use an external link if appropriate. For images with substantial editing by one or more Wikipedians, but created by someone else, use "Description at Article, by Creator (edited by Editor)" (all editors involved should be clear from the nomination). Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Creator". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.
  4. Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.
  5. Add the Featured Picture tag and star to the image page using {{Featured picture|page_name}} (replace page_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the page_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/page_name). To add this template you most likely will have to click the "create" button on the upper right if the "edit" button is not present, generally if the image originates from Commons.
  6. If an edited or alternative version of the originally nominated image is promoted, make sure that all articles contain the Featured Picture version, as opposed to the original.
  7. Notify the nominator or co-nominators by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:file_name.xxx}} on each nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
  8. If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|File:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
  9. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} to the top of the section.
  10. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the September archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
  11. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

Delist closing procedure[edit]

Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article/s.

If consensus is to KEEP featured picture status, and the image is used in at least one article, perform the following:

  1. Check that the image has been in the article for at least one week. Otherwise, suspend the nomination to give it time to stabilize before continuing.
  2. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Kept|}} --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  3. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
  4. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the archived delist nominations. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the bottom of the Retained section of the archive.
  5. Optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page.

If consensus is to DELIST, or the image is unused (and consensus is not for a replacement that is used), perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Delisted|}} --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
  3. Remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.
  4. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
  5. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the archived delist nominations. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} page to the bottom of the Delisted section of the archive.

If consensus is to REPLACE (and at least one of the images is used in articles), perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Replaced|}} with File:NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
    • Replace NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG with the name of the replacement file.
  2. Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the delisted image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
  3. Update the replacement picture's tag, adding the tag {{Featured picture|delist/image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/image_name). Remove any no longer applicable tags from the original, replacement and from any other alternatives. If the alternatives were on Commons and no longer have any tags, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
  4. Replace the delisted Featured Picture in all articles with the new replacement Featured Picture version. Do NOT replace the original in non-article space, such as Talk Pages, FPC nominations, archives, etc.
  5. Ensure that the replacement image is included on the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs. Do this by replacing the original image with the new replacement image; do not add the replacement as a new Featured Picture.
  6. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
  7. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the archived delist nominations. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the bottom of the Replaced section of the archive.

Recently closed nominations[edit]

Nominations in this category have already been closed and are here for the purposes of closure review by FPC contributors. Please do not add any further comments or votes regarding the original nomination. If you wish to discuss any of these closures, please do so at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. Nominations will stay here for three full days following closure and subsequently be removed.

Registan square, Samarkand[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2016 at 17:45:04 (UTC)

Original – Registan square. An ancient public square in Samarkand, Uzbekistan.
Reason
I stumbled across this picture randomly and it seemed to give a well framed high quality image of a notable public square.
Articles in which this image appears
Samarkand, Registan, Architecture of Uzbekistan
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Ekrem Canli
  • Support as nominator – Mattximus (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – Pretty, with pretty good detail – I only wish there was less foreground. (Also wondering if the sky tones were manipulated a bit.) Sca (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Jobas (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I really like the image itself, but the sky has issues. Also, in addition to a few tiny specs in the sky there is a rather large dust circle, mid sky, just right of center.--Godot13 (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree about the sky. If it's actually natural then I'm happy to be corrected, but it looks like an artificial gradient. 86.129.206.245 (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 17:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)



Peterhof Palace & Upper Garden[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2016 at 09:02:36 (UTC)

Original – An aerial view of Peterhof Palace, in Petergof, outside of Saint Petersburg, Russia.
Reason
High quality, high EV (complete view of the main palace building and upper garden)
Articles in which this image appears
Peterhof Palace
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Godot13

Promoted File:RUS-2016-Aerial-SPB-Peterhof Palace.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)



Death's-head hawkmoth larva[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2016 at 06:33:27 (UTC)

Original – Death's-head hawkmoth larva
Reason
It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more.
Articles in which this image appears
Death's-head hawkmoth
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator
Jeevan Jose
  • Support as nominator – Jee 06:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - do we know the species? Mattximus (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It is almost impossible to distinguish the larva of these three species. All three exist in India. I don't like wild guesses as mentioned in may larva pictures here. Jee 15:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Nomination didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)



Robert Earl Jones (redux)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2016 at 04:37:39 (UTC)

Original – Robert Earl Jones in Langston Hughes' Don't You Want to be Free? (23 June 1938)
Reason
A fine image of an important early role in the theatre of the Harlem Renaissance. Father of James Earl Jones. The first nomination got four and a half supports during a slump period, with the only complaint being about Van Vechten's composition - something that we cannot do anything about three quarters of a century later.
Articles in which this image appears
Robert Earl Jones, James Earl Jones
FP category for this image
WP:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator
Carl Van Vechten, restored by Adam Cuerden
  • Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support A kind of slightly tired hero, I don't mind the composition. Brandmeistertalk 08:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Jobas (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I think it's great as a portrait, but I agree about the composition. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Jee 07:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Promoted File:Robert Earl Jones in Langston Hughes' Don't You Want to be Free? (23 June 1938; photograph by Carl Van Vechten).jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 06:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)



Suspended nominations[edit]

This section is for Featured Picture (or delisting) candidacies whose closure is postponed for additional editing, rendering, or copyright clarification.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=739175277"