Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/November-2012

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.


	Older Archive
	Miscellaneous Archive
2004:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2005:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2006:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2007:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2008:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2009:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2010:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2011:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2012:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2013:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2014:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2015:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2016:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2017:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2018:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2019:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2020:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2021:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2022:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2023:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2024:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Fresnel lens

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2012 at 17:50:10 (UTC)

Reason: High quality, good EV
Articles in which this image appears: Fresnel lens
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others
Creator: Frank Schulenburg

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is that a railing at the bottom of the image? Spencer^T♦C 05:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support So use dry technical terms.... That is so cool! Also, a dramatic and interesting illustration of the article with historical significance. North8000 (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the picture in the gallery has a better view; showing the entire subject. JKadavoor Jee 06:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This one also shows the entire subject... And it has a far better lighting. Tomer T (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the bottom (railing?) is a bit disturbing to me. JKadavoor Jee 13:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the horizontal angle of this version better. --Pine^✉ 23:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 10:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I do like the lighting and angle of this image better than the other picture of the same lens in the gallery; however, like JKadavoor, the railing is a little distracting to me and I think it would be a little better if it were cropped out. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment there are a lot of these things in museums. Going after the one in the london science museum with a tilt shift lens might produce a better result.©Geni 09:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is interesting and useful, and the image is technically high quality, but the composition and lighting is low quality. -Fjozk (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per reasons above, I think we can do better. — raeky t 16:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a worthwhile picture as far as illustrating the subject is concerned, but for me it has insufficient artistic quality to raise it to "featured picture" status. 86.160.84.230 (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle diagram

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2012 at 09:21:31 (UTC)

Reason: High EV, good illustrative diagram
Articles in which this image appears: Bicycle, Template:Bike equipment
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams
Creator: Al2

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it was recoloured re to be more "eye-friendly" but I'm not convinced - it makes the red pointing circles harder to discern. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Just noticed the file history now. Prefer the green one. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This has to be both the simplest and most informative diagram of a bicycle I have ever seen. I can't imagine a better diagram ever being uploaded and see no reason why this image should not be featured. 16bitz 19:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 16bitz. I wish one in Malayalam too. Jkadavoor (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is it just me or do the grey boxes look awkward/distracting to anyone else? Spencer^T♦C 21:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that unusual thing earlier; but not very disturbing to me. Instead it acts as a handle to hold and group the links together. Moving the letters left and right to avoid the overlapping may better; but it is just my taste. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not "amazed" by the quality; a solid image, but IMO not quite FP worthy. Spencer^T♦C 07:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Graphically this is rather crude, although more or less technically correct. It would be a lot clearer as a simple line drawing, for example the cranks would stand out from the chainring not blend into the dark mass there, and coloured rims distract from the pointers as above. It's absolutely basic in diagrams that your pointers don't cross over, or touch other things - the front derailleur label goes right over the rear one. The grey boxes are distracting and serve no purpose. Finally, the labels are grouped semi-logically e.g. the head tube is part of the frame, there are no labels for brake levers or brake cables. A very definite 'no' to FP as it stands. ProfDEH (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The underlying line drawing is in fact very nicely done, lots of clear detail, and it would be great to see that without any colour, or just a light tone that highlights the solid parts but keeps all the detail visible. That and rearrange the labels a bit. ProfDEH (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is rare that the EV itself conveys a "wow" factor, but wow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm definitely not a fan of the grey boxes or the font choice. Change them and I'd support in an instant! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as is A few important things are missing, like the stem, or much mention of braking components (lever, cable, should say front caliper break). It would be nice to have a rear caliper brake and a front disc brake to illustrate both types of components there. I'm not a huge fan of the arbitrary grouping ("Saddle Area" is just something invented for this particular diagram, better not to mention it, "Group set" is usually the name given to the drive train components including the crankset but not the pedals). JJ Harrison (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very clear,concise and uncluttered.One minor nitpick-should it be tire or tyre-I'm not certain whether this is a 'British' or 'US' article Lemon martini (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 09:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Grey boxes need to go. Would prefer colorless version too. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lackey moth

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2012 at 20:08:50 (UTC)

Reason: High EV and quality
Articles in which this image appears: Lackey moth
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator: Dr. Holger Krisp

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support good technical quality and good EV. --Pine^✉ 03:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jkadavoor (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support good image! looks scary but good Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 13:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

. Excellent picture. ComputerJA (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Absolutely! An eye-catching image full of technical win. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks very nice, definitely helps the article. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Malacosoma neustria Caterpillar.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saint-Augustin Church

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2012 at 20:27:19 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality and high EV
Articles in which this image appears: Saint-Augustin, Paris
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Saffron Blaze

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good angle but this also worth a look. Jkadavoor (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeb's lighting is warmer and more pleasing that is for sure. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. It's a shame that the trees in the foreground obliterate the side of the building, but short of a bit of urban vandalism of those trees, there's not a lot we can do about that... Thanks for the extra link Jkadavoor but tbh the nom is streets above that one, mainly because it's, well, "above street" level... The angle of your link means that a large amount of the building is hidden... gazhiley 10:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Gazhiley. Jkadavoor (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support with note to Tomer T that in the article, the captions don't need periods because they're not sentences, so you didn't need to add the periods. --Pine^✉ 16:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Tomer T (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all above. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 19:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really love the angle, this is how all buildings should be photographed. Agree that the lighting is a bit bland and that the trees obscure the building, but still, an amazing photo. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the angle, in my opinion, gives a much more dramatic picture than this. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Saint Augustin Church Paris .jpg --Julia\^talk 16:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ali Mosque

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2012 at 11:20:55 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality and EV
Articles in which this image appears: Muhammad Ali Mosque, Ottoman architecture
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Kallerna

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm assuming this has been stitched as it's exhibiting fairly common distortion caused by cylindrical projection. Sometimes it's aesthetically pleasing but I'm not sure it is in this case... It makes the building look bulbous (not helped by the curved domes on top). I think a rectilinear projection would be more appropriate for this image. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amlash Halberd-axe

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2012 at 22:30:11 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality, of historic significance, Quality image in commons , Featured picture in Farsi Wikipedia.
Articles in which this image appears: History of Gilan, Amlash culture
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others
Creator: Rama

Support as nominator --Scholarphil (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment blown highlights on the comb bit. Very hard to avoid mind.©Geni 04:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The cutting it out to a false black background also seems a bit crude and clear it was done... — raeky t 09:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nyala female

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2012 at 20:29:11 (UTC)

Reason: High quality and good EV
Articles in which this image appears: Nyala
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator: Spacebirdy

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it just me, or is the DOF kind of narrow? Dusty777 00:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; on large view. JKadavoor Jee 06:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support per Dusty777 Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 10:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not convinced by the framing or the background. J Milburn (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~. Distracting and awkwardly positioned clutter behind animal. 86.160.84.230 (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please log in. Tomer T (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice pose, and I don't find the background distracting; high EV (the only female on the nyala page). —Bruce1ee^talk 07:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, after some thought I have to agree with Bruce1ee (talk · contribs) regarding high educational and high encyclopedic value, in addition to high quality of the image for usage with such purposes in mind. — Cirt (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose the photo's focus isn't good enough for FP. The photo of the male is better in this regard. --Pine^✉ 18:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Lennon Peace Monument

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2012 at 11:56:19 (UTC)

Reason: Pleasant lighting and colors, good angle.
Articles in which this image appears: John Lennon Peace Monument, John Lennon, Imagine (song)
FP category for this image: Artwork/Others
Creator: Creative Concern Ant Clausen

Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 11:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose While this is a valiant attempt at good photography, the text is a bit blurry when viewed at full size, and the Hilton sign in the background is unwelcome. --Pine^✉ 23:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as well, I also don't think the big photographic banner in the background would be covered under FOP in the UK, so there is a potential copyright issue here. — raeky t 08:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that when you shoot from the point of monument's inscription, the Hilton sign would be inevitably there (don't know about the background portrait though). Brandmeister^talk 12:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wider aperture would take care of that. However dealing with the blow highlight issues on the right would be a bit of a challenge. Perhaps trying with the sun very high in the sky?©Geni 20:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Pine. looks noisy Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 10:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Raeky - the background image is almost certainly not covered under FOP and may present copyright issues with the image. The Hilton sign is also a problem. It looks as though you're not quite centered on the inscription text; if you change the angle a bit, you might be able to obscure any recognizable parts of that backdrop with the monument itself and avoid the issue entirely. It's a very good image, but unfortunately the potential issue with FOP is a non-starter. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Turtle Dove

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2012 at 02:50:37 (UTC)

Reason: High quality, good image, has a free license, good resolution
Articles in which this image appears: European Turtle Dove
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: Yuvalr

Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 02:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose focus should be better for a featured picture. --Pine^✉ 23:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Pine's right - the focus looks ok at thumbnail size, but at full resolution things get a bit fuzzy. It might be possible to sharpen things up a bit using an image editor, but sometimes they add a lot of noise to the image, so use caution. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the composition is awkward. 86.160.84.230 (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the out-of-focus bird in the background is distracting. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow State University

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2012 at 10:16:35 (UTC)

Reason: Great picture, excellent lighting. (Hasn't met the one-week requirement yet, but as it obviously belongs where it is and I don't see any better daytime photo of the main building, it's not going to get replaced.)
Articles in which this image appears: Moscow State University
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Dmitry A. Mottl

Support as nominator --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost had me standing up and singing "Soyuz nerushimiy respublykh svobodnykh ..." and packing to volunteer to go down to the kolkhoz and help with the harvest. Great perspective on the best-known example of Stalinist architecture, and you're right—we're not going to get a better one any time soon. Might want to consider a tighter crop, though. Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with comment regarding a crop. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added a crop, though I'm not entirely convinced that it makes it better as it loses a bit of the dramatic wide-angle feeling with the clouds and such. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support crop I agree the first has a more interesting composition, but EV needs the crop. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support crop for en:WP; the dramatic version should be for Commons except the dang Russian FoP crap. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the Russian FoP crap? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - commons:COM:FOP#Russia. If you take a photograph of a building, it may not be free in some countries, in particular Russia. However, we ignore these restrictions here because we only care about US law, but Commons does care. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tomcat (7) 20:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support both. Jkadavoor (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support either, prefer original. I don't see why the crop has higher EV; architecture is contextual. Chick Bowen 23:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support cropped version a better and more focused view of the building. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 13:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crop Per above. Dusty777 09:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above was added by User:Dusty777. Spencer^T♦C 06:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Moscow State University crop.jpg --Julia\^talk 18:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asfi Masjid

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2012 at 06:59:58 (UTC)

Reason: A well known mosque in the Bara Imambara complex in Lucknow. Good quality, EV.
Articles in which this image appears: Bara Imambara, Asaf-Ud-Dowlah, List of mosques in India
Creator: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 06:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appears to be tilting to the left. Dusty777 16:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to have the same distortion problem as the Taj Mahal. Samsara (FA • FP) 00:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The image quality is very good, and as far as I'm concerned, the 'distortion problem' is not important, but the upward looking angle and the scaffolding in the foreground doesn't really help the composition. I'm left wishing I could see it from a better vantage point. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The green metal poles are permanently placed there. On crowded days such as Fridays, sheets of material are placed over them to act as an extension of the mosque. --Muhammad(talk) 08:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I too wish if the photographer can stand in the same level of the courtyard; but assume there is no possibility considering the steps in front. JKadavoor Jee 15:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 10:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice catch. -Fjozk (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt-1 Prefer tilt fix. Dusty777 22:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Asfi masjid.jpg --Julia\^talk 18:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tilt correction has been uploaded to the original file. Julia\^talk 18:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heron Bommie

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2012 at 03:42:18 (UTC)

Reason: High quality and EV, extremely high resolution
Articles in which this image appears: Seaview SVII
FP category for this image: Natural phenomena/Others
Creator: Uploaded by User:Hersfold, image credit belongs to Underwater Earth/Catlin Seaview Survey

Support as nominator --Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
support While perhaps not the greatest image its interesting on a technical level and the OTRS release looks solid.©Geni 04:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is rare to be able to get underwater photography of such high resolution and quality. Plus great wow factor. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH JKadavoor Jee 15:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's an excellent underwater image, and it's difficult to get underwater imagery of such quality. Eire102 (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I'm going to have to oppose here, first, we have tons of great underwater photography freely licensed on Commons. The big issue with this is the perspective is just VERY strange, it stretches very weirdly along the bottom and is nothing at all like a "normal" perspective. I don't know what scientific parameters they're using to capture the images with this kind of distortion, or if it can be programically undone or is done so it can be stitched together better with automated software or what, but this image is just weird and hurts my head to look at it. Therefore I can't support it as "our best work." — raeky t 08:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to seem like I'm hounding, but as the caption mentions, the distortion is actually part of the EV of the image. The image is captured as a 360-degree panorama, allowing the viewer to look in any direction when it's rendered properly (up and down as well as left and right and such). When rendered in that form, there is little to no distortion at the top and bottom "edges." Here, the image is rendered similar to a map of the world - I think using the Mercator projection, although I may be wrong. The point being, the image is best represented as the inside surface of a sphere, and that's how it was meant to be displayed. That distortion you see is indicative of this, and the best way we have at our disposal to demonstrate that to the reader within our article. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe it would have good EV for an article on the method of making that 360 view if we have one, or that projection method, but otherwise I think it has less EV... is that how all the images are taken for that survey to be displayed for google? Looks like only a very small few was used by Google for some novelty on their maps program, the majority of the images from this project I doubt are rendered this way since it would make it more difficult to do a survey for which they're intended. Rendered this way, viewing this way, it's odd.... EV for this project is low, an image of the actual underwater craft would be MUCH higher EV... — raeky t 16:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - All of the images taken as part of this survey are available in the proper 3D view on the group's website - there's a link to one such tour at the bottom of the article. Some - in time, maybe all, I'm not entirely sure - will eventually be available on Google as well (they've six locations already). They also provide public access to the "flat" versions like this one, which is where I downloaded this image after handling the copyright stuff. So no, they likely won't use "flat" versions of the image for survey data, but we have no means by which to display the 3D version here. I agree it looks odd, but it does make it very clear that the image is meant to be seen in a 3D view, thus illustrating the capabilities of the camera. (Since you mention it, the article does contain an image of the camera itself, but it's a little fuzzy and not FP-quality.) Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - We do have the means. I've added the appropriate template to the image page to link there. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Ooooohhhh... :-O Pretty. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Would potentially change my vote if the caption linked to the toolserver version of the image..... — raeky t 20:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I added a link to the caption in the article last night, and there's one here now as well. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 10:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image is being used to illustrate this particular scientific photography endeavor, and it is the proper choice of subject and shows the distortions. -Fjozk (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, simply breathtaking panoramic vista. — Cirt (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Heron Bommie SVII.jpg --Julia\^talk 19:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

London Olympics Womens Road Race

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2012 at 01:29:23 (UTC)

.

Reason: It's certainly not a pixel-perfect portrait, but given the very challenging conditions (poor lighting and heavy rain), I think it's a pretty successful photo of a subject that we have little quality photography of, and this is a fairly prominent event in the cycling world - The Womens Road Race at the London Olympics. The photo is taken in the closing stages of the race and focus is on the middle rider and eventual winner, Marianne Vos of the Netherlands. The rear rider, showing fierce determination is British Lizzie Armistead, with Russian rider Olga Zabelinskaya leading them into the closing stages. Water is flying everywhere, pouring down from the sky, and spraying up off the tyres of the bikes. Lighting them from the rear is the official's car just out of frame. It was understandably a tricky shot to get as I had just a split second to lean past the crowd, try to avoid waving flags/heads/arms getting in the shot, then frame, pan and track the cyclists as they passed by, and hope that they focus stayed locked in.
Articles in which this image appears: Cycling at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's road race and Lizzie Armitstead
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Sport
Creator: User:Diliff

Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 01:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer more lead room; but convinced by your argument "to avoid waving flags/heads/arms getting in the shot". Why not add to more important articles like Road bicycle racing or Bicycle racing? JKadavoor Jee 06:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When you say more lead room, do you mean more space on the right side of the frame? This can be accommodated, there is a bit of space available that I chose to crop, but there is an official in fluorescent green standing there which I thought was a bit distracting. I'll upload it as an alternative. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes; I prefer it (alt) even though the fluorescent green is a bit eye catching and her look on you is a bit distracting. JKadavoor Jee 16:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support good image, looks dramatic Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 10:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support original - The yellow jackets in the foreground (of Alt 1) and background work to draw your eyes away from the bikers, which of course should be the main focus of the image. This is a very good shot, though, particularly under the circumstances. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very nice use of focus, makes you feel like you're right there alongside them. — Cirt (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support either (slight preference original), very nice sporting shot. Chick Bowen 04:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support both, I would go for the original, although I don't mind Alt 1 – the yellow jacket on the right tends to balance out the one on the far left. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support original This is a highly dramatic photo with lots of EV. I find the yellow jackets in the alternate distracting, though it's also a fine photo. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support both, prefer alt. ■ MMXX ^talk 23:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support both can't really decide, but I am leaning towards supporting the original. Their yellow jacket is a little bit distracting.--Tomcat (7) 11:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, the second yellow jacket in the alt is off-putting. Bencherlite ^Talk 19:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Olympic Road Race Womens winners, London - July 2012.jpg --Julia\^talk 21:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ash from Mt. Pinatubo

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2012 at 09:33:24 (UTC)

Reason: A good image, has a free license, good resolution
Articles in which this image appears: Mount Pinatubo, Olongapo, Presidency of Corazon Aquino, U.S. Naval Base Subic Bay
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Others
Creator: United States Marine Corps

Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 09:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
commentEven for early 90s 400ISO film thats pretty horrific grain.©Geni 15:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While a decent depiction of the ash, the grain is just too much of a limitation. Spencer^T♦C 07:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That noise is overwhelming. Dusty777 16:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 18:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Southern Observatory trailer, 2011

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2012 at 09:31:14 (UTC)

Reason: High EV video explaining the work of the European Southern Observatory
Articles in which this image appears: European Southern Observatory
FP category for this image: link to category from WP:FP that best describes the image (check categories first)
Creator: European Southern Observatory

Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 09:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Support, high educational value and high encyclopedic value. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom. Excellent EV. Dusty777 17:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question What about all those Google Earth copyrights in the map sequence?
- This is currently being discussed at commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:ESO_Trailer_2011.ogv. Should we pause the nomination until this is resolved as keep or delete? --Pine^✉ 17:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw after discussion on Commons regarding the unfortunate problems with licensing. --Pine^✉ 17:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dom Luís Bridge, Porto

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2012 at 14:53:01 (UTC)

Reason: High EV and good quality
Articles in which this image appears: Dom Luís Bridge, Porto
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Poco a poco

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent detail, good perspective, although it's a shame that there's the tip of something poking up from the bottom-right corner. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, wonderful perspective lines. — Cirt (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good ev and nice quality. Spencer^T♦C 06:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pine^✉ 00:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Puente Don Luis I, Oporto, Portugal, 2012-05-09, DD 13.JPG --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nepali woman

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2012 at 06:56:56 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality portrait; high EV, especially for Wrinkle; Commons FP
Articles in which this image appears: Wrinkle, Demographics of Nepal
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
Creator: travelwayoflife

Support as nominator --—Bruce1ee^talk 06:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, applicable for usage on multiple articles, educational, encyclopedic, high value and high quality. — Cirt (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I'm getting a strong sense that this has had an unnatural level of post processing, in particular that kitschy bleach bypass type effect. It weakens the EV. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This kind of photo would always be move valuable with more information, as its limited, not terribly helpful use in articles demonstrates. It would be more valuable in wrinkle if her age were known, more valuable in Demographics of Nepal (and potentially other articles) if her ethnicity were known. Chick Bowen 01:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately the photographer did not publish this information here, probably because it was not known. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Manang is not ethnically heterogeneous. People from manag are called nyeshang or manang-bas; they speak their own language, Manang language, and are adherents of Bon. Several volumes have been published on the region and are likely to contain further information if required. Also note that for the purposes of the 2001 Nepal census, Bonpo were lumped with buddhists; fwiw, by this classification, only 3 of the 515 people in the village administration area were *not* "bouddha" in religious orientation; these three were Hindu, which we can exclude with a high degree of certainty for the woman depicted. Samsara (FA • FP) 13:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harald zur Hausen

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2012 at 17:23:13 (UTC)

Reason: Important figure, successful portrait, good quality
Articles in which this image appears: Harald zur Hausen
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
Creator: Kuebi

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And Support alt. Tomer T (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, high quality, historical value and scientific therefore of course educational and encyclopedic value is also high in this particular case. — Cirt (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Support for the alt, it's just as good. — Cirt (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Only his face is in focus. The left side of his head (his right side) is out of focus, the left side is only partly in focus, and the top of his head is soft. The technical defects detract considerably from the EV. Dusty777 17:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added now an alt - I think maybe it has better sharpness. Tomer T (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt -Fjozk (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt It's not entirely in focus, but the angle of the picture, as well as the stronger sharpness increase the quality considerably, and contribute strongly to the EV. Dusty777 02:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is he really bright red like that? Kaldari (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shapley–Folkman lemma

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2012 at 10:32:28 (UTC)

Reason: This is the best illustration of the Shapley–Folkman lemma in human history. Shapley's 2012 receipt of the Nobel Prize in Economics (to be awarded in December) makes this topical.
Articles in which this image appears: Shapley–Folkman lemma, Minkowski addition, Zonohedron (Zonotope), oriented matroid, Ivar Ekeland.
FP category for this image: Mathematics
Creator: David Eppstein

Support as nominator --Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, educational and encyclopedic. Also, SCIENCE! — Cirt (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~. Comment [I understand now that I cannot vote unless logged on with an account]. Incomprehensible, even after reading the opening of the article. I'm not saying it would not make sense with further study, but to be a featured picture, it needs to be more accessible than this. 81.159.107.19 (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A (now-retired) member of the WikiProject Images and Media wrote "All I can say about its illustrations is that 'I am impressed'. Excellent.", in response for a request for an evaluation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per ip. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please rephrase your oppose so that it includes a "specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image". Would it be fair to say that "the caption is too complicated and a drastically simplified caption should be substituted"? I suggest an alternative caption below, which is simpler.Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative caption:

Minkowski addition and convex hulls. The sixteen dark-red points (on the right) form the Minkowski sum of the four non-convex sets (on the left), each of which consists of a pair of red points. Their convex hulls (shaded pink) contain plus-signs (+): The right plus-sign is the sum of the left plus-signs. This picture illustrates that the convex hull of the sum of sets is the sum of the sets' convex hulls.

I'm afraid I still find this unintelligible. I have no idea at all what this diagram is supposed to be illustrating. 86.146.108.178 (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its taken me a while to understand the picture. It wasn't until I got down to Shapley–Folkman lemma#Statements that in became clear. The statement which made it clear was if a point x lies in the convex hull of the Minkowski sum of N sets then x lies in the sum of the convex hulls of the summand-sets. Even that needs some decoding, first take the four sets on the left which consist of two points each. Take all posible sums of points from each set (the Minkowski sum) this gives the 16 red dots on the left. Next form the convex hull, imaging stretching a rubber band around all the points, the convex hull is all the points inside the band, this gives the pink region on the right. The convex hull of each of the sets on the left is just the pink lines joining the dots. Finally we get to the lemma, take any point in the pink region on the right, this must be the sum of four points on the pink lines on the left. This is illustrated by the + signs.

As to the actual image, one you understand the lemma it is a very elegant illustration. However, it maybe a bit too concise, trying to put everything in one diagram, which is a impressive feet, may make it a bit harder to follow. The steps could be broken down into 4 or 6 images. A) the four sets, just with the dots, B) their Minkowski sum - the 16 dots on right, C) & D) convex hulls of A) & B), E) & F) final pic with + signs. A caption making it clear that the 16 dots on the right is the MS of the sets on the left might also help. --Salix (talk): 00:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the substantial comments. :) The statement that the convex hull of the sum is the sum of the convex hulls is a preliminary result, not the Shapley Folkman lemma (which states that an even more surprising fact, which is illustrated by David's drawing)! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah get it now. As the dimension of problem is 2 the point must be the sum of four points only 2 of which can be in the convex hulls.

Rather than a featured picture I think this would be a good candidate for the Picture of the Month in Portal:Mathematics. It would need a much improved caption so its clear what the statement of the lemma really is. Maths picture of the month does allow for a more extensive caption. Its also worth pointing out the significance of the lemma as Shapley won the 2012 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.--Salix (talk): 12:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than "can be", you mean "need be", I think. :)

The criteria for featured pictures do not include general accessibility, as far as I read. Would you, Tomcat, or the IP link this policy, please? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge of Wikipedia policy does not extend that far I'm afraid! However, I would argue that the image has no great intrinsic skill or merit, and is something that anyone with a basic familiarity with computer drawing packages could easily produce. Therefore, its only potential claim to fame* is its explanatory power, and I currently find its explanatory power conspicuously lacking. You could say it explains the theorem to people who already understand it, but is unintelligible to people who don't. 86.167.19.237 (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC) * I mean, in a "featured picture" sense. I'm sure it is a very worthwhile addition to the article itself...[reply]

David's picture was the first and may be the only illustration of the Shapley-Folkman lemma in world literature. You can see some hand-waving illustrations of the "convexification on average of Minkowski addition" in Mas-Colell's New Palgrave article on convexity and in Dimitri Bertsekas's book on nonlinear programming (cited in our SF lemma article), but there may still be no other illustration of the SF lemma---certainly not before Eppstein's picture (2010).

The criterion for judging pictures is the picture's contribution to the article, not the accessibility of the mathematical theorem (or the technique needed to produce this illustration, once David has made the conceptual break-throughs). David is a Professor of Computer Science who specializes in computational geometry, and I suspect that his use of colors, etc., rewards attention.

I thank you for ending the paragraph with a conciliatory sentence. Indeed, de gustibus non est disputandum. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it may be that I am misunderstanding the scope of the "featured picture" award. I imagined featured pictures ought to be of fairly wide appeal and interest, and accessible, at least on some level, to most people reading the encyclopedia. If that's not the case then my objections on the grounds that almost everyone won't understand it go away. 86.167.19.237 (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Yes, it does illustrate the lemma. But I'm not convinced it does so really clearly. The example given in the text of article is much easier to understand ('The Shapley–Folkman lemma implies, for example, that every point in [0, 2] is the sum of an integer from {0, 1} and a real number from [0, 1]'). JJ Harrison (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A one-dimension illustration on a two-dimensional computer-screen would not capture the imagination.Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My support is weak because I think three points in the plane might be less confusing.

I suppose that you mean three pairs of points (to be summed).

The lemma states a proposition that depends on the dimension of the space and not on the number of summands. So having four summands illustrates this take-home message, which is the reason that this lemma is so important in economics.

I had the same thought. :) However, Three pairs of distinct points (having line segments as their convex hulls) would be simpler, yet three summands do not lend themselves to symmetric graphical-representation. David's four-windows treat the four summands symmetrically. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inner radius

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2012 at 10:51:44 (UTC)

Reason: Best illustration and perhaps the only illustration in the literature, which simply uses the definitions (without illustration). The distinction between inner radius and circumradius explains why the Shapley–Folkman–Starr theorem is an improvement over the Shapley–Folkman theorem.
Articles in which this image appears: Shapley–Folkman lemma
FP category for this image: Mathematics
Creator: David Eppstein

Support as nominator --Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, educational and encyclopedic. Also, SCIENCE! — Cirt (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd like to see some verification provided. I assume there is some academic paper or textbook that could be cited to show that the information presented is correct. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The information is correct because it simply applies the definitions found in the original article (Starr). I understand that supremum and infimum operators are difficult to understand for persons who've not studied university mathematics; you could ask at the WikiProject Mathematics for additional confirmations. However, Jacob Scholbach, Geometry guy, and other mathematicians have scrutinized the article as it went through GA and A class nominations (successful) and its FA nomination (unsuccessful, because of failure on "brilliant prose"): Perhaps you could first scan those nominations and judge the comments about the content and its being based on reliable sources, before asking for new confirmations? (In response to your query, I left a notice at the WikiProject Mathematics.) Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a little more detailed explanation of correctness that can be given. The outer circle is optimal because it has three points forming an acute triangle on its boundary; enclosing all three of these points by a different circle would be larger, regardless of whether it contains any of the other points. For the same reason the inner circle can't be changed to be near to its current position without making it smaller. and in the other parts of the point set the points are placed so densely as to make it obvious that there is no larger inner circle anywhere else. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A (now retired) member of the WikiProject Images and Media wrote "All I can say about its illustrations is that 'I am impressed'. Excellent.", in response for a request for an evaluation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the criteria were a little more lenient on this point than I'd expected - they allow for verification in the article. Whilst I am uncertain whether that ought to be allowed, it clearly is. I'm certain this is supported by the sources in the article. Support. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to me to be a self-evident illustration of the concepts. The set is finite (and hence compact), and so the extrema are attained: The radii can be confirmed using a protractor (as in sophomore geometry in US high schools). The inequality of the radii is obvious. What is your concern? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have replied sooner. My concern is with verifiability. One man's self-evident is different to another man's, surely a princple we apply to articles all the time. For me to be able to verify the image, I'd need to look at an outside work, a book or article. Now I was under the impression, when I first commented, that such verification had to be given on the image page, but I was mistaken. In this case, it is clearly provided in the article and its sources. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier strike group

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2012 at 02:35:52 (UTC)

Reason: Lead image for the article Carrier strike group, good EV, nice colors, good clarity
Articles in which this image appears: Carrier strike group, Carrier battle group, Nimitz-class aircraft carrier
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water
Creator: Photographer's Mate 3rd Class Christopher Stephens

Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 02:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The horizon is not horizontal; it is tilted slightly to the left. Chris857 (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I saw that. I don't have the tools to fix it but I would appreciate it if someone who can fix it would do so. I don't think it has any meaningful effect on the EV or clarity of the photo but I agree it would be nice to have that tilt adjusted. --Pine^✉ 04:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good contrast, striking perspective lines. — Cirt (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I rotated it 0.7 degrees clockwise, and uploaded over the old file since it was such a tiny change. If anyone thinks this should be uploaded separately as an edit, feel free to revert me. Remember to purge your cache to see the edit. Chick Bowen 23:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThe US Navy frequently releases posed photos of carrier groups, and this isn't a good example as the carrier group here is much smaller than the norm (they normally include several more surface warships and at least one submarine) and the sky conditions aren't great. The head-on viewpoint also makes it impossible to identify the other ships in the group, which also means that the photo doesn't make it clear that these forces involve several different types of ships. Nick-D (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Group size in photo is consistent with the description in the article. One carrier, one cruisers, two destroyers, one supply ship. Rmhermen (talk) 05:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The submarines are missing, and the ship at the front appears to be an Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate, which I don't believe typically deploy as part of carrier groups (I think that they're now typically used for patrol work as their missile systems have been removed). Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment:I agree it looks to small for a cruiser - but the article says the submarines are optional. If the article is wrong it needs to be changed. Rmhermen (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nick-D, also noisy and unnatural sky. ■ MMXX ^talk 19:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Were the ships positioned in this formation for the sake of the photo, or is this arrangement of the ships (including the distance between them) typical for deployments at sea? If the latter, this photo would have high EV. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It says in the caption in Carrier strike group that "such a formation would not be used in combat", and it also states that "ships assigned to the USS George Washington Carrier Strike Group sail in formation for a strike group photo". It appears that is was probably set up for the purpose of taking a picture, so the EV is not very high. Dusty777 17:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Megalith

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2012 at 14:29:38 (UTC)

Reason: High quality, high EV, very impressive
Articles in which this image appears: Megalith, Harhoog
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: Michael Gäbler

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do like the picture, but I worry that the structure itself is of limited notability; we have no article on it. It's not been at the head of the article for that long, and why should it be this, rather than a more famous example? J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is because we have no good images of Stonehenge so far. :) JKadavoor Jee 04:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if that was coincidental, but I recognise the name of the photographer that you linked to.. Saffron Blaze? He's a Wikipedia contributor. Maybe he'd be able to upload a higher resolution version of it, if he hasn't already (I haven't checked commons). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linked image is a tad overcooked, but his other stuff is brill. 192.101.252.103 (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, beautiful, strikingly reminiscent of Stonehenge. — Cirt (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I wrote a very quick stub for Harhoog based on the German version. There isn't much info that I could find. Amusing note: if you Google "Harhoog," Google says "Did you mean: yahoo." Chick Bowen 04:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for Harhoog. :) JKadavoor Jee 06:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 03:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. Dusty777 16:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Megalithic grave Harhoog in Keitum, Sylt, Germany.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catopsilia pyranthe

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2012 at 14:20:50 (UTC)

Reason: Good composition, high EV, quality image
Articles in which this image appears: Catopsilia pyranthe
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator: JDP90

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great use of contrast, incredibly good focus on foreground imagery. — Cirt (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, really striking, beautiful image. Bruce Campbell (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support JKadavoor Jee 06:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF is not deep enough. Its head, most of the upper part of its wing, and its body is not in focus (soft.) Dusty777 16:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Catopsilia pyranthe male, Burdwan, West Bengal, India 14 09 2012.jpg --Julia\^talk 19:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philaethria dido

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2012 at 16:41:05 (UTC)

Reason: High quality and EV
Articles in which this image appears: Philaethria dido, Philaethria
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator: Böhringer

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nicely captured, good detail and composition. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very high quality, striking coloration schema. — Cirt (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough. I know the 105mm is not the best choice for big butterflies; just noticed three big opposes in Commons. JKadavoor Jee 06:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose out of focus at the top of the wings, at the front of the antennae, and at the legs. --Pine^✉ 23:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. --ELEKHH^T 05:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Pine. Other FPs of insects do not have this issue. Reduces the EV considerably IMO. Dusty777 17:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pracht Passionsfalter, Philaethria dido 1.JPG --Julia\^talk 08:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Streisand effect

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2012 at 21:54:35 (UTC)

Reason: High EV, superior quality for a 2002 digital image, OTRS ticket from authors, free licensed iconic image, no unnecessary digital manipulation
Articles in which this image appears: Streisand effect
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman

Support as nominator --Peter Weis (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. IMO this is one of the few images that is actually more suitable for enwiki FP than Commons FP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. High EV. No better picture illustrates the Streisand effect.--xanchester (t) 20:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support good EV for the article and adequate technical quality. --Pine^✉ 09:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Picture is of fair quality. Seems a little soft, has a slight tilt, and has some very light noise scattered throughout, but the EV is good enough that it deserves a weak support. Dusty777 17:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Streisand Estate.jpg --Julia\^talk 17:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dormition Cathedral, Moscow (door)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2012 at 00:53:14 (UTC)

Reason: High quality and very detailed depiction of a wonderful detail of the Dormition Cathedral. The image was stitched from nine photographs.
Articles in which this image appears: Dormition Cathedral, Moscow
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Alvesgaspar (talk)

Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although a picture of the actual building would have more EV. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support both pictures, although I prefer the second one. ComputerJA (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt; I prefer to see all the saints too. JKadavoor Jee 16:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Alt, Support Original Alt has blown highlights in the top left, is soft, and the five saints at the top have their heads cut off. The original does not have the EV the ALT does, but the technical quality is better. Dusty777 17:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original What happened to the colours in the "original"? They seem rather saturated. Samsara (FA • FP) 13:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt for EV. -Fjozk (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt, more details, but original isn't bad. Brandmeister^talk 15:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt Tomer T (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Moscow July 2011-3a.jpg --Julia\^talk 18:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calliptamus italicus

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2012 at 17:30:21 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality and high EV
Articles in which this image appears: Calliptamus italicus
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator: Kulac

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, easy choice, quite high quality image, high educational and encyclopedic value. — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support What Cirt said - great pic, worthy subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs smartygirl (talk • contribs)
Support per Cirt. ■ MMXX ^talk 19:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, agree with Cirt. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support although a bit tight on left. JKadavoor Jee 06:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Full of EV.Alborzagros (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Head is a bit soft, but that doesn't hurt the EV too much. Dusty777 17:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Calliptamus italicus03.jpg --Julia\^talk 18:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:V&A Museum Foyer, London - Oct 2012.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2012 at 14:52:01 (UTC)

Reason: It's a wide, vertically perspective corrected view of the entrance foyer of the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, the "world's largest museum of decorative arts and design".
Articles in which this image appears: Victoria and Albert Museum
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator: User:Diliff

Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great usage of both contrast and lighting to highlight the unique coloration schema. — Cirt (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport Tomer T (talk) 09:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment Hmm I'd have to say there are a number of issues that suggest it would be better to wait until camera technology improves.©Geni 12:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you be more specific? If you're referring to the dynamic range, which I found was the biggest challenge with this photo, then I accept that criticism, but I don't think the only solution is waiting for improvements in camera technology. An exposure blend may help, for example. However, it wouldn't be easy in this photo as it's four segments (2x2) stitched, and taken handheld while leaning a long way over the balcony to avoid the edges from appearing in the frame. I'm not sure that I could hold the camera particularly steady for longer exposures necessary for bracketing, but I could try. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Colour change on the floor betweeen far left and right. Not sure of that is real. The leftmost arch either has a screen across it that the camera is struggling to render or something strange is going on. The view through the rightmost arch has overexposure issues.©Geni 21:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know why you would assume that the colour change between left and right is a camera issue though. The camera wouldn't create such blatant colour shifts across a scene. There are quite different light sources: left side is natural lighting coming in from the entrance, right side is fluorescent, middle is incadescent. The leftmost arch has an array of cables hanging from the roof which is what you're seeing there. Yes, it's a bit noisy and isn't rendered cleanly, but fine lines in dark areas rarely are at the best of times, even at low ISO. As for the view through the rightmost arch, I wouldn't really call it overexposed - it's just reflected light in the gold trim, which is pretty hard to avoid. I don't think there are any truly blown highlights there. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Whatever the technical merits, this is a very formal architectural space and the casual angle it's seen from here fails to convey that. At the very least it should be possible to see some element of symmetry. ProfDEH (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not possible to take a photo from a symmetrical angle. The best position would be from a central position in front of the pillars (obviously not realistic). The only other symmetrical position is the middle of the balconies. However, I tried that too and the resulting distortion is very unpleasant - more (IMO) than the lack of symmetry here. In such a small space, to fully capture the entire room while minimising distortion, this view is it unfortunately. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know that is the case, but it isn't a reason to support FP. The space is square and I do think the image lacks value if that is not immediately apparent, even to an architect. Actually I rather like the distorted wide angle rejected view, it explains the space very much better. Isn't there a way to reduce the distortion, maybe by not fully correcting the verticals?ProfDEH (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it's possible to reduce the distortion. Not fully correcting the verticals results in this, which is even worse. Because the angle of view on the vertical is so high, correcting the distortion of the floor dramatically increases the distortion of the roof, not to mention the vertical lines are no longer straight. It's just one of those scenes that you cannot photograph without distortion. All you can do is minimise it by selecting the best available position, which I think I did. You're right though, it's not an argument in favour of featuring it if you don't think the perspective works. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm not entirely sure this is the right place to discuss this but) the corrected symmetrical version really shows what is going on so well, you can crop it to a portrait format and still get the sense of a square space and the interconnected aisles or whatever they are called. ProfDEH (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried "squashing" the alternative to around 2/3 its size and the distortions seemed to disappear. Would it be possible to do so more effectively? --Muhammad(talk) 21:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure exactly what you mean by squashing it to 2/3 it's size? Do you mean in both dimensions (not sure how that would help), or do you mean just vertical or just horizontal? I tried both to see what you meant, and neither seemed to remove distortions IMO. In any case, because of the nature of the projection used, I don't think linear compression is the answer, any 'fix', if there were to be one, would be a complex non-linear compression. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fish eye effect is pretty strong along the bottom/left side of the picture. Dusty777 17:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose This is a good image which would have required a lot of experience and work to execute. However, I think that the distortions to the foyer are too great for it to be of FP standard; a feature of the V&A's foyer is that it's fairly cramped, and this gives an illusion of space. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 18:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frigiliana

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2012 at 16:28:26 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality, high EV and informative panorama for the article Frigiliana
Articles in which this image appears: Frigiliana
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
Creator: Aqwis

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Gives a good view of the town and its geographic location, is high resolution and aesthetically pleasing. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, provides a significant level of quality panoramic of the locale, beautiful, places the area within its surroundings nicely. — Cirt (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Pretty, good EV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom and above. Looks great! Dusty777 17:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per all gazhiley 15:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support the white seems washed out on some of the buildings, but except for that relatively minor problem I think this photo is worthy of FP. --Pine^✉ 18:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:FrigilianaPano3.jpg --Julia\^talk 18:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calopteryx virgo

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2012 at 09:10:22 (UTC)

Reason: High quality and high EV in displaying the female of the Calopteryx virgo species
Articles in which this image appears: Beautiful Demoiselle
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator: Sanchezn

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! JKadavoor Jee 15:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality and EV. Pine^✉ 00:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, high encyclopedic value and educational value, strikingly good quality. — Cirt (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. Dusty777 17:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:ColapteryxVirgo.jpg --Julia\^talk 07:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ardabil Carpet

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2012 at 10:27:47 (UTC)

Reason: High Quality And Full of EV.
Articles in which this image appears: Ardabil Carpet
FP category for this image
Creator: vam.ac.uk

Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is below our threshold for image size (1,248 × 2,411) however the technical challenges of photographing such an object are considerable. From the exif data, the carpet appears to have been scanned by the V&A -- it would be hard to photograph with a camera. So I think the exclusions to image size apply. The carpet is historically important and the image valuable for the article, so the EV is very high. Colin°^Talk 13:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think an object like this COULDN'T be imaged at massively high gigapixel resolution? It's flat, easy to scaffold to get camera equipment over and can a massive image can be stitched together out of many smaller photographs.. not technically difficult for a museum to pull off, and has likely been done. — raeky t 08:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, perhaps you want to raise the resolution threshold for artwork to "gigapixel" now? After all, Google Art Project shows it is technically possible. Just because something is theoretically possible, doesn't mean that's going to happen. Colin°^Talk 11:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - 6 pixels an inch for a work is sufficiently high resolution to represent our best work? You going to drop the bar that low? — raeky t 12:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I did think twice about this because of the low resolution. But I balanced that disappointment over the fact that this is one of the most important carpets in history and has been imaged flat-on rather than the side-glance that most folk at the V&W will get. It is just a judgement-call. Colin°^Talk 12:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support High Quality--Mahan (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support a historical indication and high quality--:)Mahdi ^talk 15:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportHigh quality --Kasir ^talk 16:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pine^✉ 00:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support a very precious image of a very precious carpet, indeed! In fact 12:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Piling on! Dusty777 17:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great addition to Wikipedia. It would be nice on the main page. -Fjozk (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strange I'm the only person to bring this up.. but a carpet isn't exactly a 2D work, and a photograph of it likely is still copyrightable. The source of this image appears to be the museum in the UK, so copyrighted... Is there any precedent to state that a carpet/tapestry is 2D enough to not generate a copyrightable photograph? — raeky t 08:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Secondly the carpet is 34½ feet by 17½ feet ( 10,5 metres x 5,3 metres), this is an absolutely tiny image, just barely squeaking past our current size requirements for such a HUGE object... — raeky t 08:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look at this picture. Its size and position make it impossible for anyone to take a better photograph. We are completely at the mercy of the V&A releasing their scanned image online, at whatever size they are willing to provide. Wrt the 2D aspect, I'm no lawyer and ultimately that's a decision for another forum than FP, but it was scanned by a machine, which suggests a 2D quality and not a creative, copyrightable, work. Colin°^Talk 09:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - High quality photographs of any artwork at a museum is likely technically impossible for anyone but the museum, your point? And copyright is ENTIRELY within the purview of a FPC nomination, since if it's likely to be deleted anyway, why nominate it? I'm fairly sure that things like this are not 2D works... — raeky t 09:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, rather than WP:SHOUTing at me, go nominate if for deletion. -- Colin°^Talk 11:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It was hardly shouting. commons:User_talk:Dcoetzee#Copyright_Question is probably a sufficient answer to the copyright issue. But I'm going to Oppose on size since I'm sure the museum has scaled this image down for the web, and it doesn't meet our size requirements, it's an existing object that can be rephotographed, it's not technically difficult for the museum to do, if they haven't already. About 6 pixels/inch is NOT sufficient resolution for a featured picture of this carpet. I don't see this as being a case where nothing better can be expected which is the only clause to ignore the size requirements. Speedy Close. — raeky t 12:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support easily meets our criteria. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ardabil Carpet.jpg --Julia\^talk 08:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heydar zade Home

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2012 at 11:04:49 (UTC)

Reason: High Quality and Framing- Full of EV.
Articles in which this image appears: Haidarzadeh house
FP category for this image
Creator: the creator of the image, where possible using the format Jacopo188

Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This appears to be a scan of a profesionally printed image, with the "noise" the result of a halftone or similar printing technique. As a result, regardless of image quality, I'd be very reluctant to promote such a picture without an OTRS ticket establishing its licence/ownership. But anyway, the image doesn't stand close scrutiny, especially the bad photoshopping on the floor. Colin°^Talk 12:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wow, really noisy, and a peculiar blurred patch through the right side of the floor. Also, I share Colin's skepticism of the origins of this photo. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'm not sure that it's necessarily the noise of a halftone or similar print scan. If you look at previous versions, the earlier high-res one seems to have more sedate noise, more in keeping with high ISO film. That makes a bit more sense, as the EXIF refers to a photo processing machine. Skepticism eased slightly, but still not really of sufficient technical quality. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking at the previous versions, the one immediately prior to current is at the same resolution, but is less noisy and without that hideous photoshop blur. Should we revert to that version? Chris857 (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd say yes, but it wouldn't swing me around to a support. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That noise is overwhelming. Dusty777 17:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 08:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon Bonaparte as First Consul

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2012 at 15:21:31 (UTC)

Reason: High quality and high EV, FP, quality image, and valued image on Commons
Articles in which this image appears: French Consulate, François Gérard
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: François Gérard

Support as nominator --xanchester (t) 15:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, already assessed as both high quality and high value on Wikimedia Commons, in addition to its obvious nature of high encyclopedic and high educational value along with its clearly high quality strengths. — Cirt (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low EV. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for EV there are better portraits of Bonaparte as First Consul wearing his flashy crowd-pleasing red number.Yomangani ^talk 11:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tomcat. This is not adding much. J Milburn (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Placement in articles is poor. Little EV per Tomcat. Dusty777 17:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 08:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citroën DS3 WRC

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2012 at 10:39:22 (UTC)

Reason: High quality, good EV, impressive shot
Articles in which this image appears: Citroën DS3 WRC
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land
Creator: Ralf Roletschek

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy, unsharp. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not seeing the noise referenced by Tomcat, but the multiple blown highlights kill the visual appearance. Dusty777 17:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The highlights don't bother me, but the abundance of advertising does. I much prefer the WRC paint job in the photo here. Also, this article is short and I'm not impressed with the references. Two of the references are dead links, and the other two say little about this car. --Pine^✉ 20:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parish Church of Urtijëi

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2012 at 10:43:36 (UTC)

Reason: High EV and good quality
Articles in which this image appears: Parish Church of Urtijëi
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator: Moroderen

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose noisy in the middle, particularly the red curtain. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no problems here. Dusty777 17:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks fine to me. - ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd like to see a bit more sharpness and detail, along with more symmetry on the ceiling, but very well composed. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, sharpness is fine enough for me and otherwise excellent. Daniel Case (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Parish church Urtijei internal view.jpg --Julia\^talk 16:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inkscape 0.48.2 SVG screenshots

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2012 at 11:13:33 (UTC)

Reason: Most screenshots used in Wikipedia articles, even those of freely-licensed software, are in a raster graphics format such as JPEG or PNG, which easily lose quality when zoomed in, and their low resolutions do not meet FP standards, but these screenshots are in the SVG format, and even with a resolution of 3784 * 2424, they can actually be scaled indefinitely without loss of quality (albeit not in articles, where they are converted to PNGs. Scalable versions of the images can be viewed in an SVG-compatible browser, by clicking on the image on the description page). There are two images here, you can support any one of them, or even both. If you have a vector graphics editor such as Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator and you can improve this image, please do so. jfd34 (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Articles in which this image appears: Inkscape
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other
Creator: jfd34 (talk · contribs · count · logs)

Support as nominator --jfd34 (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would prefer a free software environment, e.g. Linux. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think clarification is needed here. The role of the image is either

a) to demonstrate the concept of an SVG. In this case, the subject of the picture - Inkscape - is largely irrelevant. To that extent, the images aren't used to demonstrate SVGs in general.
b) to demonstrate Inkscape as a program. This is clearly the sense they are used in in the article. However, in this context the fact they're SVGs is largely irrelevant. That's not to say I'm against SVGs in general – I'm certainly not, I have a couple of promoted FP SVGs, and from the look of it this has taken hours of work. But in so far as this image describes Inkscape, a raster version would work just as well. The fact it scales makes little difference to its usefulness, in this context.

I just don't understand why the Inkscape interface has been painstakingly recreated in SVG format, except for a love of irony. However, it is the image in front of me and it does provide a good example of the Inkscape format. So I'm leaning towards supporting. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many Inkscape screenshots available on Commons here. Most of them are either JPEGs or PNGs (there are a few SVGs, but their data is mostly embedded PNGs, unlike this one). When they are opened in an image viewing program and zoomed in, jagged edges are noticeable particularly on the toolbars. Tracing them into SVGs eliminate all these problems which otherwise cause an image to fail the FP criteria. jfd34 (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Inkscape is a program that runs on a computer with a raster display. Therefore, the only correct screenshot is a raster one showing the pixels of the software. This is just a very well executed drawing that looks a lot like Inkscape. I think the real reason we don't have FP screenshots isn't because they are too small, but because there no still in making a screen capture. There's clearly skill on display here, but I think your efforts were misspent. Colin°^Talk 20:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I completely disagree with Colin. I think he is not so technical informed (so I mean false criticism). That would be apply generally to all SVG? I like this very. So why is quality here misspent? --Perhelion (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because the artist wasted a great deal of time creating this svg artwork when, really, a png screenshot of Inkscape would be sufficient in being an encyclopedic illustration of the software. He clearly has svg skills, and there are plenty of images on Wikipedia that should be in svg format but aren't if he wants to contribute those skills to Wikipedia; but this isn't a time when it's necessary. It isn't being used to illustrate was .svg is, what it can do, what (when used correctly) its advantages are over png or jpeg. There is no need to illustrate Inkscape in an .svg image just because it can output in that format. And there are also situations when artistic renditions and drawings are suitable (maps and concept vehicles to name two), and when they aren't (like when pressing PRT-SCR will work). Like Colin said, despite how excellently drawn it is (and I do think it is), it just looks a lot like Inkscape, but it isn't Inkscape. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 04:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the output of a clever program that can produce vector screenshots? That would be interesting. Or has someone manually redrawn the screenshot? That would be impressive work and patience for sure, but I don't completely see the point of doing it... 86.128.4.241 (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have manually redrawn it. jfd34 (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The image is used in the article as examples of the program in use, not as an example of a vectorized version of a raster image (whether or not that was done manually or not does not matter). I argue that this is a misrepresentation of the concept being illustrated due to the fact that there may be some discrepancies from the source and this version (as there was a conversion done, and yes I understand photos are manipulated frequently, but you can argue that photographing an object requires interpretation of light, etc. where a screenshot has a fixed representation outside of resolution and other settings). I also believe that the format of this image reduces the compatibility with many older browsers unnecessarily while adding no additional EV. --Chrismiceli (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 16:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Graslei, Ghent

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2012 at 19:28:31 (UTC)

Reason: A good quality picture that conveys nicely the mood of a very popular place in the city of Ghent, including the usually overcast sky of the region
Articles in which this image appears: Ghent
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
Creator: Alvesgaspar (talk)

Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, already rated as high level of quality at Wikimedia Commons, high encyclopedic value, high educational value, good usage on the project. — Cirt (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Nice overview image. good EV. Lycaon (talk) 07:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tomcat (7) 11:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Modern place, easy to rephotograph, therefore the extremely overcast/cloudy day isn't ideal, we can do better. — raeky t 13:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. It's a shame, but the lighting is so flat and dull, for me it really detracts. 86.146.106.216 (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support Per Raeky. I don't care for the cloudy sky, but in the event of a clear sky picture coming available, I suggest a D&R. Dusty777 17:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is useful image which was competently executed. However, the flat lighting unfortunately means that it doesn't have a strong visual impact. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in its current form per raeky and Nick-D. Samsara (FA • FP) 12:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support If this weather is typical for the location then I see no reason to vote against this. A sunny day would be visually nicer but that doesn't make the photo more encyclopedic or educational. --Pine^✉ 20:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 16:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even counting Dusty's ambiguously conditional support, this nomination does not reach a 2/3 majority, although it's close. Please feel free to renominate if this outcome is unsatisfactory. Julia\^talk 16:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6:3 is a 2/3 majority... Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a mistake. My apologies. Julia\^talk 20:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ghent April 2012-3.jpg --Julia\^talk 20:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Volucella bombylans

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2012 at 12:37:50 (UTC)

Reason: Good EV and good quality
Articles in which this image appears: Volucella bombylans
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator: ComputerHotline

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, high educational value, high encyclopedic value, incredibly good quality and resolution. Also, SCIENCE! — Cirt (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support While it would be more preferential to have the entire body in view/focus, this contributes good EV IMO. Dusty777 22:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dusty. JKadavoor Jee 01:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Quality is not good enough, especially when compared with the existing FP of insects. Lightint is not good, the angle is not the best and very little of the subject is focused. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough support. Jujutacular (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colorada Lake 2

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2012 at 12:54:49 (UTC)

Reason: I display here and above two good pictures of Colorada Lake, both of them have high EV and contirbute to the article in a different way. This one is a good panorama of great quality, showing well the surroundings of the lake, and also displaying its unique coloration, its fauna (flamingos, although displayed in the other picture in a more obvious way) and flora (Stipa ichu).
Articles in which this image appears: Colorada Lake
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
Creator: Chmehl

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, quite striking panoramic landscape shot, displaying the notable aspects of the natural phenomenon, including both the depth and key surrounding visage. — Cirt (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great picture. I believe the EV would be increased considerable if this picture were removed from the article. While it contributes a fair amount of EV, the article doesn't seem big enough to support three pictures. Dusty777 22:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're probably right. The picture you linked to didn't contribute that much to the article (it did demonstrated the red color of the lake, but two pictures are sufficient), and mostly created graphic overload. Hence I removed it. Tomer T (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per removal of the other picture from the article. The other picture didn't have the quality that this one does. The added EV is excellent! Dusty777 02:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Samsara (FA • FP) 17:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support JKadavoor Jee 09:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Laguna Colorada MC.jpg --Jujutacular (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colorada Lake 1

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2012 at 12:47:35 (UTC)

Reason: I display here and below two good pictures of Colorada Lake, both of them have high EV and contirbute to the article in a different way. This one, although somewhat soft, is an impressive, eyecatching, photo demonstrating well the different coloration of the lake and its abundance in flamingos, and hence has high EV and good contribution to the article, and to other articles about the area.
Articles in which this image appears: Colorada Lake, Eduardo Avaroa Andean Fauna National Reserve, Salar de Uyuni
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: User:Lucag

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great unique portrait shot of a natural phenomenon. — Cirt (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose While I do agree with the points pointed out by the nom, I can't support this. The coloring is bad, has medium noise throughout the picture, and the water appears to have some motion blur. Probably some issues with the saturation also, but I'm not expert enough to point that out. Dusty777 22:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naqsh-e Rustam

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2012 at 14:40:51 (UTC)

Reason: High Quality, Nice Framing, Featured Picture in Commons and Persian Wikipedia.
Articles in which this image appears: Naqsh-e Rustam
FP category for this image
Creator: Ggia

Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, high quality, already reviewed and accepted as Featured Quality on multiple other websites, high encyclopedic value, and high educational value. — Cirt (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Made me read the article, which is always a good sign... Although often distracting, the people in the far left foreground actually help get a sense of scale... No flaws that I can see with the picture... gazhiley 14:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support JKadavoor Jee 11:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I can't really fault this to be honest, except maybe that the sky has been artificially darkened a little too much, perhaps with a polarising filter. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and enc. Spencer^T♦C 07:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:20101229 Naqsh e Rostam Shiraz Iran more Panoramic.jpg --Julia\^talk 22:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tramea basilaris

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2012 at 16:28:03 (UTC)

Reason: Sharp, no background distraction, features of the insect are seen well
Articles in which this image appears: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramea_basilaris
FP category for this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator: User:Kallidaimaniac

Support as nominator --Hari Krishnan 16:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Wrong ID. She is actually Trithemis aurora; not Tramea basilaris’. You may refer my gallery to identify some odonata of South India. General advice: 1. "Images must be categorized; this should include the taxa naming for organisms". 2. "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". 3. You inserted this picture on the page as a gallery. It is better to use the thumbnail code available under "use this file on a wiki". (I just noticed your all four resent nominations here and doubt you’re much newbie to here. Hello and best wishes from your nearby place, Kerala.) J Kadavoor J e e 05:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for pointing out the mistake. I shall correct it. Kallidaimaniac

Not promoted Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 09:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 09:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Friedman

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2012 at 19:13:55 (UTC)

Reason: Dramatic portrait, high quality. Meets criteria.
Articles in which this image appears: Milton Friedman and others
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
Creator: The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, most certainly high educational and high encyclopedic value, high quality image. — Cirt (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Chiaroscuro effect is overdone, with the obvious purpose of creating a heroic image. Chick Bowen 05:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per chick; this doesn't have strong EV. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose as per above, but also it's awful close up... So blurred and grainy... This is never going to pass so I'd Suggest Speedy Close if anyone else agrees?! gazhiley 10:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close Per criteria 8. Dusty777 17:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Tomer T (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Town Hall, Munich

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2012 at 17:47:36 (UTC)

Reason: High EV and good quality
Articles in which this image appears: New Town Hall, Munich, Marienplatz, Munich, Bavaria
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Diliff

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, already assessed as high quality image on Wikimedia Commons, plus high encyclopedic value, high educational value. — Cirt (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose More noticable at full res, but the entire right hand side of the picture seems to be at a completely different angle, almost as if that part of the building is built on a really steep slope... Spoils it for me... gazhiley 14:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit 1 that hasn't fixed it sorry - it's gone the other way now! I don't think either are acceptable personally... gazhiley 15:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Yes, that is a rather strong distortion in the LRH quadrant. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support either --Muhammad(talk) 14:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support original and Oppose edit 1 The lower right part is really odd on edit 1, with straight horizontal lines now broken... Not sure it's good of a tradeoff (and there was nothing to trade to begin with anyways). - Blieusong (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 1 looks worse to my eye, but the original looks distorted too. 86.181.201.173 (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign in to add comments gazhiley 10:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.42.231 (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See raeky t's comment on your same link... That's why I said "Please" rather than "You Must"... gazhiley 10:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moonbeam III

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2012 at 19:04:51 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality photo of a yacht designed by William Fife, already featured on Commons
Articles in which this image appears: William Fife
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water
Creator: Ludo29 on Commons

Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 19:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, quite striking and beautiful, good coloration, educational and encyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Quite an interesting and striking photo, but sharpness is lacking. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's a lovely photograph of a yacht, but I wish there were more information about it in our article(s). Right now, it's only mentioned in passing in William Fife, sharing a bullet point with Moonbeam IV on a list of yachts identified (without specific explanation) as being among Fife's sixteen most notable vessels still sailing. The bullet point briefly mentions that it is a "cruiser handicap rater" without further explanation or supporting references and links. What is the sail plan? Is the ship notable for its design, or its condition, or because it was used to smuggle rum? Is it flying a French flag for a particular event or does it have a French owner? What happened to Moonbeams I and II? Right now this image is being used as part of a gallery down the side of the article. While it is the only color photograph and is arguably the prettiest and most 'dynamic' of the bunch, right now the other images seem to have greater historical and educational significance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that since the only contemporary photograph of a Fife vessel that's still sailing, and the article is about Fife rather than the ship, the current placement of the image has good EV as a depiction of Fife's work and legacy. Regarding the French flag, if you read the caption on the file page, it says that the photo was taken as the ship participated in the French Fêtes maritimes de Brest 2008 maritime event. --Pine^✉ 18:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actinidia chinensis

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2012 at 17:40:43 (UTC)

Reason: High EV and good quality
Articles in which this image appears: Actinidia chinensis
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits
Creator: JJ Harrison

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, high quality, educational and encyclopedic. Also, SCIENCE! — Cirt (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support JKadavoor Jee 08:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mason Doering (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Actinidia chinensis - Austins Ferry.jpg --Julia\^talk 18:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chambord Castle Northwest facade

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2012 at 15:52:59 (UTC)

Reason: Noticed the picture I replaced was already FP. As this one is a far better version, with better lighting and much higher resolution, I propose to promote it here (maybe replacing old one, not sure about the process here). Not most inspiring shot, but fulfills its encyclopedic purposes well IMO.
Articles in which this image appears: Château_de_Chambord
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
Creator: Commons:User:Benh

Support as nominator --Blieusong (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's better. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I'm loving the perspective lines. — Cirt (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. -- Colin°^Talk 20:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I have the impression that the colour balance is a bit warm. I'm really not sure what it looks like in person though, because the other photos in the article show it to be virtually bleached white, or even more yellowy-cream. I kind of wish there was a bit more sky, as I find it, compositionally, a bit bottom-heavy. In any case though, detail is very good and it's an excellent replacement for the other, which I didn't really like that much even in 2006, reading back on the nomination. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right. But I checked the setting, and I don't think the WB was set to something excessively cool (5900°) and I offset the tint trigger to the red side to remove the green color cast. But as far I as remember I was a bit surprised with how white the building rendered in real because many pictures have too warm (?) WB, and that's how we see it in the end. Maybe someday someone else will confirm. In any way, it will be an easy fix. As for the composition issue... I'll be fine with a cropped alternative, but will leave up to the more acquainted reviewers of en:FPC to decide which one suits best EV purposes. - Blieusong (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just read it again and noticed you actually mention warm... time for me to go to sleep. Tough issue to settle. I'll leave it like that because I remember this less well than when I processed it. Until someone confirms. - Blieusong (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Chambord pano.jpg. J Milburn (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Creator of the "superseded" FP here. Yeah, this one is clearly better - the light was really flat on mine. Also it was taken with a compact :) To my eye, the colour balance in this FPC is on the warm side, but you know, 4:37pm in May, maybe. Stevage 00:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support JKadavoor Jee 08:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I brought WB to the cooler side a bit and also slightly sharpened it. I overwrote the original one since it's likely to be a good change for everyone. - Blieusong (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't easily tell from my work PC (the display is awful), but it looks to be a significant improvement of the white balance. I don't think it needed any more than that. Thanks. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support gazhiley 15:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seem to be an increasing number of these artificial/distorted perspective pictures, especially of buildings. While often excellent encyclopedic value in terms of documenting the buildings themselves, I find them aesthetically displeasing. 86.181.201.173 (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same seems to go for anonymous irrelevant comments (Irrelevant here for sure). This picture roughly has 68° of horizontal field of view and uses rectilinear projection (check EXIF, "comment" field). Pretty much what you would get with a standard lens at common focal length. To prove you wrong, this is a same picture taken at 24mm on APSC, in a single shot and with zero postprocessing, excepted for the levels/tones parts. You can see one needn't distort anything to get the results as seen on the FP candidate (and for a good reason, it's from the same point of view). - Blieusong (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See [2]. And I'll thank you not to make snarky comments. I am entitled to an opinion. 86.171.42.231 (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His point was valid though. The image is not 'artificially disorted' and the field of view is not extreme. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even those who choose to be anonymous, but obviously incorrect ones are entitled to be disputed. In any case, your original comment came across as a bit inflamatory and I don't blame him for responding as he did. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that my comment was a bit extreme, I apologize for that. But as said, my point is valid (which you didn't denied) and I did not want the claim to mislead other people (which happens). - Blieusong (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to muddy the waters a little: there is a degree of twisting distortion on the round towers at the extreme left and right: the horizontals aren't and the verticals are slightly out too. This occurred to a greater extent on the Taj image which did have an extreme horizontal angle of view. I agree that the angle of view here isn't more than the wide-angle setting on a standard zoom, and it appears on the out-of-camera shot Blieusong links. What is going on? Is this the horizontal equivalent of a vertical perspective distortion? The sides and middle of the building aren't precisely the same distance from the viewer yet the rectilinear projection (or standard lens) gives that illusion on our 2D screens. Could it be that this sort of distortion is always present on large architectural subjects, but these little round towers are unforgiving subjects? -- Colin°^Talk 16:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there is a small amount of counterclockwise rotation (resulting in horizontal tilt), and a small inwards perspective tilt (undercorrected verticals), but these are just imperfections in the perspective correction rather than distortion caused by an extreme angle of view, and they're not really visible at a regular viewing distance. I can see that the towers appear to be skewed inwards but I wonder if the reason for this is that they're not parallel with the front facade and as a result, the outside visible edge is closer to the viewer than the inside edge (also due to the fact that we're essentially viewing it from an angle and not straight-on). I'm straining my brain to visualise just what this should do to the perspective, and whether it would explain what we're seeing. In any case, I'm not particularly bothered by the 'imperfection' - it's good enough. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think u r right, seems to be more backward tilt (point of view slightly up). I attribute this to me not using vertical correction as you mentioned. Will fix. Thanks for review. As for distortion, I'd like to insist that projecting 3D space into 2D plan comes with properties tradeoffs such as angle, straightness of lines, areas (they are the said distortions) and I could go on but don't know them all. So there are always distortion of some kind, and it depends on how you define them, or how much of them you're willing to accept. We have to be aware of the constraints: you can't expect a square to always remain a square unless it's in a plan parallel to the focal plan, and the projection is linear. The only possible counteract to this is getting farther away from the subject, and we would have ended with something more like the previous FP. The rest is matter of taste. - Blieusong (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After looking at other pictures and coming back to that one, I decided to increase contrast and saturation a little. Hope you won't mind. - Blieusong (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well... after Colin and Diliff's reviews I had to fix the backward leaning... Which is done now I believe (for those interested, I messed up with the guidelines. My verticals were good, but my horizontal guide was wrong). I again overwrote, and as a bonus (or not depending on how u look at it) provided a wider framing. Hope this will be a final change. Thanks for the helpful reviews also. - Blieusong (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support High EV, good quality, etc. All the changes noted above are improvements IMO. Jujutacular (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Chambord Castle Northwest facade.jpg --Julia\^talk 18:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Centaurus A

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2012 at 19:50:06 (UTC)

Reason: Interesting photo of an unusual galaxy, 2,808 × 2,957 pixels, lead image for the article
Articles in which this image appears: Centaurus A, European Southern Observatory
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
Creator: ESO/WFI (Optical); MPIfR/ESO/APEX/A.Weiss et al. (Submillimetre); NASA/CXC/CfA/R.Kraft et al. (X-ray)

Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 19:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added Alt 1 which was proposed as an alternative on Commons. I support either version. --Pine^✉ 21:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as high resolution, high quality, high educational value, high encyclopedic value. Also, SCIENCE! — Cirt (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support made me read the article to find out why it is "unusual". That is always a good sign! Plus it's a high quality, interesting picture... gazhiley 12:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great "wow" and EV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality and EV. I prefer the original. Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 09:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:ESO Centaurus A LABOCA.jpg --Julia\^talk 15:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Royal Albert Hall, London - Nov 2012.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2012 at 21:18:11 (UTC)

Reason: It's a high resolution and aesthetically pleasing view of the Royal Albert Hall in London. I chose to take it at dusk, as I think the evening lighting makes it look more impressive and it stands out better among its surroundings than during the day. Detail is such that if you look carefully, you can even read the writing on the plaques through the main window, or the billboards outside.
Articles in which this image appears: Royal Albert Hall
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: User:Diliff

Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good indeed. However, I think I prefer your crop as the buildings are distracting (my eye is led up the roofs in steps up to the top left). -- Colin°^Talk 21:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colours and contrast and good sharpness. The subject really stands out of the surrounding. Plus good timing and quiet setting. I am very surprised by the lack of noticeable artifacts of exposures blending. - Blieusong (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an excellent photo with strong EV. I prefer this version to the crop as it shows how the Royal Albert Hall is, despite its grand appearance, somewhat hemmed in by other buildings. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support There is a fairly large amount of motion blur, floating headlights, ghost lines etc around the bottom of the picture, from left to right... The quality of the picture is high enough to still retain my support, but the above issues distract me too much to retain full support... I appreciate that it's going to be nearly impossible to prevent this while retaining the quality of the picture in these lighting conditions, but I just find them annoying... gazhiley 11:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Stunning and technically superb. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, high quality contribution from User:Diliff, also good educational and good encyclopedic value. — Cirt (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support looking at it in full resolution, it feels like I'm there. Tomer T (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another excellent panorama from Diliff. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Royal Albert Hall, London - Nov 2012.jpg --Julia\^talk 15:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sangaste Parish

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2012 at 14:52:52 (UTC)

Reason: High EV and good quality
Articles in which this image appears: Sangaste Parish, Sangaste, Estonia
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Iifar

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I find the bushes in the foreground awkward because the edge of the path is cropped out of the frame, and it upsets the composition a little. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to me the camera is tilted upward. I prefer a higher camera position at par with the ~~basement~~ ground level. JKadavoor Jee 15:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a Support or Oppose? Your viewpoint leads me to believe it's an oppose.. But could you clarify the comment on angle? higher up and basement to me are two different things - basements are underground generally...... gazhiley 17:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean top of basement ("zero level"); corrected to make it more clear. Here the extreme bottom of the building and the courtyard are hidden by the bushes and it seems the photographer is on a sloppy terrain below ground level. My comment is negative, but prefer not to vote; because the subject (architecture photography) is beyond my area of expertise. -- JKadavoor Jee 09:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, thank you for your explaination... I was confuzzled! gazhiley 08:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 15:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trifolium pratense

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2012 at 15:30:42 (UTC)

Reason: Good EV and high quality
Articles in which this image appears: Trifolium pratense
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
Creator: 池田正樹

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, educational and encyclopedic, good resolution, high quality image. Also, SCIENCE! — Cirt (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original oversaturated. Samsara (FA • FP) 23:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm not convinced that it's oversaturated. The lighting looks good (possibly off centre flash used) which might be contributing to it being well saturated. If indeed oversaturated, it should be simple enough to desaturate without loss of fidelity as it's not blown in any of the RGB channels. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An exact duplicate is available with a wrong ID which should be deleted. A cropped version of File:Wiesen-Klee, Trifolium pratense 4.JPG may also worth to consider, which has more details and less noise. Both suffer in DOF to some extend. -- JKadavoor Jee 15:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess the duplicate image is an issue for Commons rather than this process as it's not used in the English Wiki, but thanks for bringing it to our attention. I don't think the alternative that you link to is nearly as nice as this one though, as the frontal flash is not subtle or particularly aesthetic. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That one doesn't have the oversaturation problem. I've added that as an alt and adjusted the sizes. I hope that's okay, Tomer. Support alt. Samsara (FA • FP) 20:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's ok. Tomer T (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose alt uneven composition, and I don't like the angle of view and the fact that the flower is kind of 'tilted'. Tomer T (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure it's oversaturated, but I uploaded an edit with less saturation and added it as Alt 2. Tomer T (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 15:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red-vented Bulbul (Pycnonotus cafer)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2012 at 14:36:31 (UTC)

Reason: Has good color balance, contrast, no major image-noise. Brings out the details of the bird, and so adds encyclopedic value to the article. Image used in the Wikipedia article on the Red-vented Bulbul. Has a free license. No inappropriate digital manipulation done. Image is of high resolution.
Articles in which this image appears: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-vented_Bulbul
FP category for this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: Kallidaimaniac

Support as nominator --Hari Krishnan 14:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - ~~fails criterion 2 as its height is only 1333 pixels. Chris857 (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

The resolution now meets the minimum, however, I note that there is a fair bit of yellow-blue chromatic aberration, especially visible around the feet. Chris857 (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have uploaded a new version of the same file with larger dimensions (2,400 × 1,600 pixels). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kallidaimaniac (talk • contribs) 18:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Chromatic aberration removed. Kallidaimaniac (talk)

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 15:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Sunbird (Cinnyris asiaticus)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2012 at 14:58:56 (UTC)

Reason: Brings out the details of the bird, including the colors. Meets criteria.
Articles in which this image appears: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Sunbird; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds_of_Tamil_Nadu
FP category for this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: Kallidaimaniac

Support as nominator --Hari Krishnan 14:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Lacks critical sharpness. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 16:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Netrebko

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2012 at 18:04:18 (UTC)

File:Anna Netrebko as Adina in Donizetti's L'Elisir d'Amore edit.jpg

Quick NR edit

Reason: High resolution and quality, shows the artist in her work setting.
Articles in which this image appears: Anna Netrebko
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator: Metropolitan Opera

Support as nominator --Samsara (FA • FP) 18:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise almost everywhere, but otherwise quite good. Brandmeister^talk 19:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See edit. Samsara (FA • FP) 20:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weak oppose edit It would suffice for a normal photo, but FP chicks deserve a sharp portrait. Brandmeister^talk 21:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Remember to give consideration to the high resolution of the image. I'm not sure what "FP chicks" are. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 21:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Featured picture girls :) While this particular image may be unique, Anna herself can be reshot, unlike some historical persons (today almost any freely licensed high-resolution image of, say, Princess Diana would pass). Brandmeister^talk 01:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Brandmeister^talk 00:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp, noisy. Even when reduced to 1500x2000 with sharpening applied, the eyes just aren't in sharp focus, which is a fatal flaw in a portrait. The NR edit doesn't help and has lost fine detail. Shame as it is a good pic as a thumbnail and should probably replace the article lead IMO. Colin°^Talk 12:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you on the infobox image. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The NR edit [..] has lost fine detail. Every noise reduction method does that. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not completely true, though ones options with a JPG are more limited. Selective, rather than global, noise reduction and sharpening, combined with the best tools, could retain more detail than this. However, it isn't worth the effort here IMO. Colin°^Talk 18:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - My above statement is precisely true, in fact. Untreated noise from the sensor is fine scale and cannot, with terminal accuracy, be distinguished from fine detail. Imagine a subject with a spot on it that is exactly 1 pixel in size in your photograph, and whose colour/value difference from neighbouring pixels is within the margin of noise. What will any functional NR algorithm make of that? Exactly. QED. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - [Luke:] I can’t believe it. [Yoda:] That is why you fail. -- Colin°^Talk 19:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        What an apt analogy, since in both cases, the laws of physics/mathematics are being violated. Samsara (FA • FP) 19:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Nope. I suggest you do some reading on the subject. As I said, there are many options that require intervention before a JPG is created that certainly do not lose detail (some even extract further detail than a standard shot can achieve) and other options that minimise any perception of detail lost but all is not lost even with a JPG. Not all noise is random. Not all noise is perceived or intrusive. There's some clever software out there, there are some clever techniques out there and there's a clever round lump between your ears that is unmatched by any of those. Colin°^Talk 19:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Image noise#Image noise reduction. "Fix" it and reference it, or stop making untenable claims. Samsara (FA • FP) 10:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The untenable claim was that "Every noise reduction method [loses fine detail]". I said that was "not completely true, though ones options with a JPG are more limited". Not all noise reduction methods are appropriate for mention in the article Samsara linked. There's also no obligation on me to fix up Wikipedia to "win" an argument. Ok, here are some noise reduction methods that do not lose image detail (or lose apparent detail):

Dark-frame subtraction is already mentioned by the article you linked. Many cameras support this automatically for exposures > 1s -- too long for a portrait but not for many other images.
"Multiframe noise reduction" which is a Sony camera feature that's been around for several years and is present on probably all of their cameras now. It is also known as "hand-held twilight" which gives a clue that it can cope with a degree of photographer and subject movement. I've no idea if it is present on other brands or is a notable enough feature to warrant mention on WP's image noise article. One can do the same oneself by taking multiple images and aligning them and stacking them with Enfuse. This is a fairly well known technique and I've used both.
Related to that is using exposure fusion when compared to the alternative for a HD scene: which is to lift the shadows and recover the lightlights using a tool like Lightroom -- both of which would have increased the noise in the image.
There's also the various techniques manufacturers use to reduce the A->D conversion noise in their chips and to detect and remove pattern noise at source. They can also identify bright/dead pixels and mark them for elimination in the raw file.
There's the cleverness of the demosaicing algoirithm used by the raw processing software. Different tools vary considerably in their ability to do this well, even before one applies any NR to the image.
There's the photographer's technique of exposing to the right which involves over-exposing the image at shooting time and bringing the exposure back down for JPG creation. That is a noise-reduction technique that takes advantage of the linear way brightness is recorded as bits.
There's basic photoshop/lightroom technniques of applying a combination of masked sharpening and NR in a selective manner to an image. The hair, hat-band and skirt of the above photograph have very little apparent noise but lots of image detail -- they should be spared when applying NR. Most images have some degree of sharpening and noise reduction applied to them and there's considerable room to improve on simplistic global settings.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" -- Colin°^Talk 13:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Horrifically fuzzy/noisey/whatever the expression is. gazhiley 09:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hide inappropriate material.

... Which is a great shame cause she's puuuuurrrrrrrrrrdy... Humana-humana-humana... gazhiley 09:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since when did FP turn into a teenage male wank fest? Seriously people, there are women who edit this encyclopedia and this nom has taken a creepy turn. Quit it.pschemp | talk 20:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that Gazhiley's comment was inappropriate but a single comment does not suggest a "wank fest"--most of the discussion above is about digital noise reduction, which only our most committed image editors wank over. Chick Bowen 22:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is me finding a woman attractive and commenting on it inappropriate, and akin to a teenage male wank fest?!! This is not the first and won't be the last time that a male editor finds a woman attractive... Jesus guys, lighten up... gazhiley 09:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know if it's just me, but the way her hands are positioned, I'm expecting her to rip open her blouse. —howcheng {chat} 17:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what? JKadavoor Jee 04:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just that that may not be the best impression to give for an operatic soprano. —howcheng {chat} 05:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Howcheng and others :)--Tomcat (7) 20:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 18:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fontaine S. Michel, Paris

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2012 at 18:25:38 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality depiction of a very well-known monument in Paris, adding to the articles. Only today I realized that they were so many.
Articles in which this image appears: Archangel Michael in Christian art, Boulevard Saint-Michel, Fontaine Saint-Michel, Francisque Joseph Duret, Saint Michael (Roman Catholic)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Alvesgaspar (talk)

Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The front shot of entire structure could be better (perhaps as a two-piece set together with this image). Brandmeister^talk 09:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Agree with Brandmeister, something like this would be better.--Tomcat (7) 20:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 18:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Water pollution in Lake Maracaibo

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2012 at 20:17:50 (UTC)

Reason: After the previous nomination about water pollution in Lake Maracaibo, a new picture was uploaded, which addresses the request for more context in the previous nomination. I think this picture meets the criteria.
Articles in which this image appears: Water pollution, Lake Maracaibo
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: Wilfredor

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A decent picture but not particularly striking or unusual (sadly). I disagree with its (current) use as the lead image of the water pollution article, which is almost exclusively about pollution dissolved or suspended in water, rather than "trash" washed up on the shore (it merits one sentence). The picture is also far from the most important in the lake article. -- Colin°^Talk 11:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppse per Colin - doesn't really show water pollution, more general rubbish with a lake in the background... And doesn't really show enough of the lake to be good EV for the lake... gazhiley 09:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the views given here - we have in the past promoted FPs for stub articles. This creates a precedent for situations where as long as the scope is correct, we grant that the image has EV, even if the article needs development. Since nobody has made the case that floating debris does not form part of the water pollution lemma, I don't see how this image can be considered ineligible. Samsara (FA • FP) 10:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I don't think a photograph of trash on the shore "adds significantly" (per criteria) to an article that is 99% not about trash on the shore. If one had access to a decent photo library, this wouldn't be anyone's shortlist (never mind first choice) to illustrate an article on water pollution. IMO it is only in the lead because the photographer put it there, and because some of the other pictures are weak on a technical level. -- Colin°^Talk 10:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 19:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian woman condemned to die of starvation

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2012 at 09:56:27 (UTC)

Reason: This unique historic photograph depicts a harrowing scene in which a woman is held captive in a wooden crate and left to die of starvation. It is both a mesmerizing illustration of not-so-distant history and a fine example of early color photography.
Articles in which this image appears: Starvation, Capital punishment in Mongolia, Immurement
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others
Creator: M. Stéphane Passet (1875-?) on behalf of Albert Kahn (1860-1940), retouched and uploaded by CMBJ

Support as nominator — C M B J 09:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the colors seem to be true, although slightly enhanced compared to original. Brandmeister^talk 13:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment Do we have a solid source that this actually depicts what it claims to depict?©Geni 17:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine its publication in the National Geographic includes a description of what is shown. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since Geni raised this point, I went ahead and looked around for further information and found that there has been speculation about the photograph (e.g., here, here, here, and here) since I originally uploaded it in 2010. The proposed caption is based directly on National Geographic 41(5) and I am not presently aware of any additional authoritative commentary beyond Okuefuna's apparent conjecture in The Dawn of the Color Photograph. — C M B J 13:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was on the look out for sources I could use to ameliorate the articles following the concerns below. They are few, but this is one. However, it really does pour doubt on this photograph showing a starvation (if you google "Mongolia Starvation Punishment" then I haven't found one describing starvation in this matter) - the passage from the linked book ("sometimes criminals were put in wooden boxes...") makes it sound like an internment rather than a death sentence. It's discussed alongside other physical punishments, and the paragraph finishes "lay there 2-3 months without being able to move". That, I think, refers to another form of punishment. The fact remains that any reference to the person actually dying is conspicuously absent. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've come up with this (CHAPTER XV), this, this, and this. I'll follow up later today or tomorrow. — C M B J 14:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look and those very much suggest it's a form of prison. e.g. "... the prisoners allowed to come out except for execution or – rarely – to be set free. The majority are in for life sentences." which suggests they are fed and watered. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that all of these books (excepting the last) describe a specific state dungeon in Urga. I'll continue looking for further details about the practice elsewhere in Mongolia; particularly as it relates to solitary outdoor placement in the plains/desert. — C M B J 00:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditional Support~~: there are fewer better examples of historical, unique images. Somewhat fortunately, this is one. However from a licensing perspective it needs a PD-Art tag; a declaration in respect of the retouchings (that is, your contribution - in the US you wouldn't have a right to one, but elsewhere maybe). Also it would be worth clarifying PD-US to PD-1923 (because this makes clear the country of origin isn't important). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose: Updated per below, too many doubts about what is depicted to accurately assess the image. If it is just a prison, then contribution to "immurement" is zero, and "capital punishment in Mongolia" small. That's not to say the caption is wrong, it just needs further investigation. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There is nothing about this method in the article. It's really not adding anything. Please remember that we are judging the use of images in articles, not merely the image itself. J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the image provides an example of Capital punishment in Mongolia and Immurement. I am no stranger to an argument that says that an image could contribute, but doesn't yet, but I do feel in this case that the relation between the image and the subjects of those two articles is strong enough that it adds considerably even without extensive discussion. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly adding more to the article on immurement than the one on capital punishment in Mongolia. J Milburn (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per J Milburn. Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 20:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Huge impact makes for high EV IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King of Hearts. Tomer T (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose also going to have to agree with J Milburn. — raeky t 08:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As a photograph this is quite striking, even if its technical aspects are up to the bar set by some early B&W photographs we've seen here. This should have more information about it in the articles, but its use in immurement is high enough EV for me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Immurement states that it's being walled up inside a building or structure, nothing about some wooden box with locks and hinges. How does this have much EV for that article? — raeky t 03:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see how this photograph has EV until we know what it shows. It's a bit like a butterfly we haven't identified - it could go in a broad article but for FP we want it tied down and contributing to something more specific. I suggest CMBJ relists if/when he or she can confirm whether this is a method of death, i.e. immurement, or one of imprisonment. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original caption says she was meant to die. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have substantiated enough of a case above to suggest that may be incorrect. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's incorrect, than why do you still support the image. Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 19:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, updated.

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 20:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hibiscus schizopetalus

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2012 at 16:12:00 (UTC)

Reason: Brings out all the features of the flower; petals and stamens visible clearly; no background distraction. Meets FPC criteria.
Articles in which this image appears: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibiscus_schizopetalus
FP category for this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Plants/Flowers
Creator: User:Kallidaimaniac

Support as nominator --Hari Krishnan 16:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose The red/pink hue seems severely over-saturated. This coloring differs pretty sharply from the lead image in the article, which has a much more subdued pink. Jujutacular (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Over-saturation corrected. Kallidaimaniac (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice species. Brandmeister^talk 11:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hardly any details such that it look like a painting --Muhammad(talk) 06:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's very poor in quality in comparison to say File:Hibiscus schizopetalus (Botanischer Garten TU Darmstadt).jpg, plus it's in a gallery, which is against criteria so it couldn't be promoted because of that... the article is a stub and probably over illustrated with two pictures of the flower? The one in the infobox is the superior flower image of the two options. — raeky t 11:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 20:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

River Thames by dusk

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2012 at 03:51:36 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality, free license.
Articles in which this image appears: River Thames
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
Creator: Merlaysamuel

Support as nominator --Merlaysamuel : Speechify 03:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Sorry, but minimum resolution is 1500 width and height. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close I have to agree with King of Hearts, if it was a 4:3 image with one side above 1500px and one side below (such as in 1600x1200) then I'd be happy to defend it against the hardliners who insist on 1500x1500 or greater but at least one side has to be large enough or there just isn't enough flexibility to use the image in an article, on the front page, or elsewhere where it may need to be resized to various sizes or seen full size. Cat-five t c ---- 21:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Speedy close etc. Sorry, but poor composition (too much water resulting in unbalanced view with tightly cropped London Eye) and it's such a common view. The one thing this photo has going for it is a nice dusk glow on the horizon. In any case, it doesn't exist in the article anymore which makes it ineligible. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your sound opinions. I am quite happy to withdraw this nomination. Merlaysamuel : Speechify 21:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Theatre at Palmyra

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2012 at 09:36:52 (UTC)

Reason: Hi everyone, long time no see. Saw this while going through DYK: its a nice, solid image of a notable structure, used well in two articles, and of good resolution. Also, FP on Commons
Articles in which this image appears: Roman Theatre at Palmyra, Palmyra
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Eusebius

Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting view; and I think the 21 support in Commons make sense. J Kadavoor J e e 12:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Week oppose Some part of the theatre is missing. Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 20:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the other picture cover that issue well; and it seems difficult to include the entire cavea here. J Kadavoor J e e 04:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support I am not keen on the sky in this - seems blown, especially around the high centre point of the structure... Would prefer this shot on a nice clear day... Other than that it's a nice sharp interesting picture... gazhiley 09:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree about the sky, and it's a little dark in the middle, but given the difficulties of accessing archeological sites in Syria these days I think the value of this overcomes those concerns. I'm glad that our Palymra article is so well illustrated. Chick Bowen 22:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, highly valuable. The nearly-blown out sky seems to work for me in this context; at the very least it doesn't detract from its value. Jujutacular (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not 100% in love with the sky despite some people saying that it works but the subject isn't the sky and it's a great photograph of the subject. Cat-five t c ---- 21:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Palmyre - théâtre pano.jpg --Julia\^talk 21:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calatayud

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2012 at 13:33:44 (UTC)

Reason: High EV and good quality
Articles in which this image appears: Calatayud
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
Creator: Poco a poco

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The brightness of the sunlight in this picture makes the subject appear quite dark, and as such less appealing at thumb size - shame as otherwise it's a very detailed picture... gazhiley 09:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 21:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Heron

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2012 at 13:42:09 (UTC)

Reason: High quality and high EV
Articles in which this image appears: Green Heron
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: Basar

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. J Kadavoor J e e 15:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mason Doering ^talk 09:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to have medium noise throughout the picture... Background is distracting too. Dusty777 17:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough. --Brandmeister^talk 09:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 12:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Butorides virescens2.jpg --Julia\^talk 21:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheiracanthium mildei

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2012 at 13:21:24 (UTC)

Reason: Excellent macro shot, good EV. Featured on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Cheiracanthium mildei, Cheiracanthium, pedipalp
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Arachnids
Creator: Richard Bartz

Support as nominator --Mason Doering (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cut off - needs full subject in view based on prev noms... gazhiley 08:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple other pictures in the arachnid category are cut off. -- Mason Doering ^talk 10:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, still doesn't change my opinion though as I feel it should not be cut off. Past noms I cannot comment on. gazhiley 09:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: May have EV in pedipalp. Samsara (FA • FP) 10:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not much. Further, Pedipalps are common for entire Chelicerata; so two picture of spiders is a bit inappropriate. J Kadavoor J e e 05:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 21:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Duchess of Padua

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2012 at 17:49:23 (UTC)

Reason: High-quality restoration from scan of a scene from Oscar Wilde's The Duchess of Padua, one of his more obscure plays. The titular duchess is on the left, and the other person is the main character Guido.
Articles in which this image appears: The Duchess of Padua
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Literary illustrations
Creator: Artist: Unknown; Restoration: User:Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator --—howcheng {chat} 17:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has a nice Romeo and Juliet feel to it. Brandmeister^talk 13:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Guerillero | My Talk 21:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tomcat (7) 20:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 06:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Love Adam's work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:The Duchess of Padua.jpg --Julia\^talk 19:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]