Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/November-2022

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.

Geraldine Ulmar as Yum-Yum

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2022 at 08:02:43 (UTC)

Reason: Publicity photo for the American run of The Mikado. Has some flaws, all of which are fairly extensively documented at the file information page. It's a publicity photo and a bit of a fantastical one - Yum-Yum does not go up into the sky in normal productions, and I don't think she did in this one - but it's an iconic image of her. I've prepared a cropped version if that's preferred.
Articles in which this image appears: Geraldine Ulmar, The Mikado
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator: Benjamin Joseph Falk, restored by Adam Cuerden

Support either as nominator, slight preference original – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs} 08:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the card is mutilated, I'd support the cropped image, if there's consensus. --Janke | Talk 13:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – either original or Alt 1. I didn't know there was a moon landing in 1885! Bammesk (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support either. MER-C 16:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Janke, Bammesk, and MER-C: it'd mean updating the captions, but I've added an alt. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs} 18:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer the original, tbh. (t · c) buidhe 08:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: As it may matter to promotion, d'ye support the other as well? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.1% of all FPs} 12:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'd say the vote applies to both. A preference isn't a vote. (drop the preference and you get an unconditional vote) Bammesk (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Geraldine Ulmar in Gilbert and Sullivan's The Mikado - photograph only.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shear Flow Vortices

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2022 at 15:20:00 (UTC)

Reason: Was seen on Commons FPC two weeks ago, where it was featured unanimously. Rare example of good science photography on WP.
Articles in which this image appears: Shear flow
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Others
Creator: KarlGaff

Support as nominator – MER-C 15:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That bubble needs a better explanation - is it part of the phenomenon or not? If not, what exactly is it? --Janke | Talk 09:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is. MER-C 17:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I edited the image caption. The circle is certainly of the same construction as the arch. Bammesk (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There may be more to it than I thought [1]. I have placed an inquiry with the uploader on Commons: [2], and I might change my vote accordingly. Pinging participants @MER-C, Janke, and David Eppstein:, Bammesk (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I updated the article's image caption per input from the uploader (author) at: [3], same with the description on Commons: [4]. I think the caption is detailed and unambiguous. Bammesk (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Per Janke. Visual information not readily intelligible to viewers. – Sca (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per above. I can't tell based on the picture nor the caption what I'm even looking at. -- mcshadypl ^T^C 08:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. George's Basilica, Malta (ceiling)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2022 at 15:23:16 (UTC)

Reason: Was seen on Commons FPC last year, where it was featured unanimously.
Articles in which this image appears: St. George's Basilica, Malta
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator: Diego Delso

Support as nominator – MER-C 15:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Brilliant ceiling lights detract from comp, IMO. – Sca (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lens flares are too intense and very distracting. -- mcshadypl ^T^C 07:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 9

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2022 at 15:02:10 (UTC)

Reason: Quality lead image in Apollo 9. Eye catching photo of David Scott (photographed) standing in the open hatch of the Command Module, photographed by astronaut Russell Schweickart from outside of the Lunar Module. Interesting fact: as noted below by User:C&C and as the article says, the two astronauts are mutually photographing each other, with each holding a camera in these photos. Per the article: "The mission was flown to qualify the Lunar Module for lunar orbit operations in preparation for the first Moon landing by demonstrating its descent and ascent propulsion systems, showing that its crew could fly it independently, then rendezvous and dock with the Command Module again, as would be required for the first crewed lunar landing."
Articles in which this image appears: Apollo 9, David Scott, +2
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Getting there
Creator: NASA / Russell L. Schweickart, edited by Coffeeandcrumbs

Support as nominator original or as a set, I prefer a set – Bammesk (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I never got around to it but I meant to nominate this as a pair with File:Schweickart Apollo 9 EVA (AS09-19-2982).jpg. These photos are even more notable when you realize they document, from both POV, the second two-person EVA in history, the first being Soyuz 5 from which there are no photos that we know of. David Scott is holding a camera pointed at Russell L. Schweickart who took this photo. In the other photo, we have the reverse with Schweickart hold the camera that took this photo of Scott. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A set nomination is harder to pass IMO, there is no uniform agreement on what constitutes a set, examples [5] [6]. Two separate noms may have a better chance. However, I added the second image to the nom, in case there is support for it. Bammesk (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support either original or as a set. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support either this alone, or the suggested pair. --Janke | Talk 15:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added the suggested second photo. Feel free to vote for either image individually or as a set. Bammesk (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SupportEither the first image, but preferably as a pair. Not only do they showcase an important historic event but the photographs themselves are quite beautiful. This is an era of space travel we will never live again; the retro spacesuits are quite eye-catching. Having both images reference each other is a nice touch as well :). Good find OP Fbrh47 (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support original or as a set. MER-C 15:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Armbrust, I think the vote by User:Fbrh47 applies to the set, so I see a slight preference for the set. I updated my vote as well. Bammesk (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so too, but set nominations need to be closed manually and didn’t have the time to do that. Will close this once I got home from work. Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Gumdrop Meets Spider - GPN-2000-001100.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Schweickart Apollo 9 EVA (AS09-19-2982).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Arrest of Pangeran Diponegoro

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2022 at 00:33:19 (UTC)

Reason: High-quality photograph of an important painting significant to the Indonesian historical narrative. According to this diff by uploader, it was taken by the official photographer of the presidential palace, where the painting is displayed.
Articles in which this image appears: Diponegoro, Raden Saleh, The Arrest of Pangeran Diponegoro, The Submission of Prince Dipo Negoro to General De Kock
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/War
Creator: Raden Saleh

Support as nominator – —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 00:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lots of dust spots, needs some work.--Janke | Talk 13:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC) --Janke | Talk 13:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I agree with Janke, but I wouldn't say it's dust. The bright spots are probably part of the paint, their intensity is perhaps amplified by the image processing and the lighting conditions. Also the color balance may be exaggerated (compare to earlier upload). Bammesk (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd presume light reflections. Note how they're much more intent on the right. Paint is three-dimensional, so, unless you kind of lighting-stack in an analogue to focus stacking multiple photographs of a painting, you're going to get some issues. This is particularly bad, though. I don't think it's anything against the official photographer; paintings are genuinely difficult things to reproduce. I'd volunteer to go over it, but, honestly, I currently have a backlog of about 12 images, waiting desperately for something I put up to reach quorum. I'm not really interested in taking on another huge task until things start passing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.1% of all FPs} 23:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Janke -- mcshadypl ^T^C 08:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

W. S. Gilbert

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2022 at 21:46:44 (UTC)

Reason: Given the original is about four and a half inches wide, and I'd say it looks quite good zoomed in to 12" wide or more. It might not be perfect if you pixel peep, but it's great at much larger than original size. Also, d'ye know how long I've been looking for an image of him to restore?; Fun fact: My "to nominate" list is getting quite long as I try to weather this voting drought.
Articles in which this image appears: W. S. Gilbert + 7
FP category for this image: Given he wrote many non-musical plays and books, WP:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers seems to fit slightly better than /Entertainment
Creator: Elliott & Fry, restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.1% of all FPs} 21:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – and featured article too. Answer: a long time! Bammesk (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Hopefully one as good of Sullivan can be found somewhere, too... --Janke | Talk 10:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not quite as good, but good for its time. It's about a decade earlier. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.1% of all FPs} 21:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 15:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Well done. He is the very model of a modern major librettist. Choliamb (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently User:Choliamb has a total of 86 edits (now 102 edits, by 18:25 UTC time) on the en-Wiki ~~making them ineligible to vote at FPC~~ (per instructions on top of WP:FPC). But given the user has 2550 edits on Commons, I think that's sufficient and we can make an exception in this user's case. Pinging participants @Adam Cuerden, MER-C, Janke, and Choliamb:. Bammesk (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC) . . . . I struck part of my comment, the user passed 100 edits on the same day they voted. Bammesk (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I didn't notice that restriction. It's true that I'm much more active on the Commons than here at Wikipedia. That said, I've been spending the morning cleaning up some citations of early editions of Greek and Latin texts, so I should be over 100 edits by the end of the day! Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I don't think I have the right to say "Yes, promote my image." But, as it appears the vote is valid at time of closure anyway, it probably doesn't matter. Armbrust has final call, as always. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs} 04:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Elliott & Fry - photograph W. S. Gilbert.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hohenschwangau Castle

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2022 at 15:17:37 (UTC)

Reason: Was seen on Commons FPC in June where it was featured unanimously. Very high resolution (100 MP).
Articles in which this image appears: Hohenschwangau Castle
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Thomas Wolf

Support as nominator – MER-C 15:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs} 03:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Janke | Talk 08:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cerianthus membranaceus

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2022 at 15:23:45 (UTC)

Reason: Featured on Commons in July. Concerns about background are less relevant here - that it blends in has EV.
Articles in which this image appears: Cerianthus membranaceus
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Cnidaria
Creator: Diego Delso

Support as nominator – MER-C 15:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets my standards for the more-difficult underwater shots. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs} 03:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Sullivan

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2022 at 16:33:10 (UTC)

Reason: While this isn't the lead in his article - we try to use photos of him at various relevant ages - it's the lead image of several articles on his works, appears in his article, and is a very good photograph.
Articles in which this image appears

Lead: I Will Mention the Loving-kindnesses, On Shore and Sea, Overture di Ballo
Prominent use in: Festival Te Deum, Onward, Christian Soldiers, The Light of the World (Sullivan), The Masque at Kenilworth, Thespis (opera), Arthur Sullivan

FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator: Henry Joseph Whitlock, restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.1% of all FPs} 16:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Janke | Talk 08:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I support this nomination, but for obvious reasons it shouldn't be featured for several weeks before or after the marginally superior image of Gilbert below. Choliamb (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chioliamb: I presume you mean POTD. I'm co-ordinator of that, as it happened (need to get December sorted soon), but, anyway, was thinking maybe the 125th anniversary of his death, so November 2025. Significant dates are ample to space things out. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs} 08:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Drat, I meant Choliamb for the ping. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs} 08:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, I wasn't very precise, but I did mean POTD. Wasn't sure how many images were in the hopper for that, since you implied at the VP that there was a bit of a crisis in participation. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 12:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Choliamb: We're losing our backlog, but we still have one for the moment. But it's slipping backwards rapidly. We had 12 FPs in all of October if I'm counting right, and POTD goes up every day. The busy period of a few years back will sustain us for a bit, but once we're through that backlog... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs} 16:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 19:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:H.J. Whitlock - Photograph of Arthur Sullivan.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigmaringen Castle

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2022 at 16:53:55 (UTC)

Reason: Quality photo of this castle, and lead image of its article. Currently at Commons FPC as well.
Articles in which this image appears: Sigmaringen Castle
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Jörg Braukmann

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Good comp, xcllnt detail. Extensive & interesting target article – in which it's the lead photo.
– Sca (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality image that does a great job of illustrating the subject of the article Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs} 03:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Janke | Talk 08:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very high quality + main image in its article. Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Excellent. Choliamb (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 19:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Schloss Sigmaringen 2022.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spinifex pigeon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2022 at 03:19:15 (UTC)

Reason: Quality photo of this bird endemic to arid regions of Australia.
Articles in which this image appears: Spinifex pigeon
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: JJ Harrison

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs} 03:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Janke | Talk 08:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - High quality + main image of its article. Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Choliamb (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 19:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Spinifex Pigeon 0A2A1585.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Rose of Persia

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2022 at 05:54:13 (UTC)

Reason: Poster from the original tour of Basil Hood and Arthur Sullivan's The Rose of Persia. If I'm reading the museum site right - it's a little weirdly phrased - this is the same as the one used for the original London production.
Articles in which this image appears: The Rose of Persia. Probably more it could be in, but, y'know, I'd rather have it in one good article than overstuff a bunch.
FP category for this image: WP:FP/THEATRE
Creator: Dudley Hardy, restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs} 05:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 19:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Auxiliary Territorial Service women working on a Churchill tank at a Royal Army Ordnance Corps depot

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2022 at 08:32:41 (UTC)

Reason: Not the lead image, but high quality, despite a little graininess, and it uniquely illustrates this aspect of the Auxiliary Territorial Service in World War II.
Articles in which this image appears: Auxiliary Territorial Service, Royal Army Ordnance Corps
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/World_War_II
Creator: Lt. Taylor, War Office official photographer; Restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs} 08:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Every worker in this pic. is female; it's good to show a historical scene of women doing this sort of work. (Suggest the photo also be posted somewhere in the Churchill tank article.) – Sca (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty staged/posed, but support anyway. --Janke | Talk 13:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, staged, but still worth posting. After all, they must have done some kind of work on the tanks. -- Sca (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 19:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd want to see evidence that this image accurately depicts working practices to support, as it looks badly posed. The arrangements are plainly grossly unsafe for instance - lowering the turret in while other women are working on the decking immediately next to it seems highly unlikely to be standard practice even by 1940s-era OH&S standards. All of the workers also appear to be wearing spotlessly clean uniforms which also suggests the image is posed - all accounts I've seen of tank maintenance stress it's very messy work. Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – I agree that it looks posed, and I think all of Nick's observations are on point. But I don't think a photo like this must be strictly documentary in order to serve its purpose. I'm actually more bothered by the composition, which IMO is weakened by the excessive floor space in the foreground and the distracting observer in the lower right corner. I also wish there was just a little more breathing room to the left and right between the tank and the edges of the photo. I wavered between weak oppose and weak support, but came down on the side of support. Choliamb (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it would be good to crop from bottom, but how to deal with observer at right? -- Sca (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It probably wouldn't be too difficult to blot her out with the clone stamp tool in Photoshop or some similar tool in another program. The mottled gray floor background is actually well suited to that kind of cover-up work without leaving conspicuous traces. But at what point does this cross the line between restoration and manipulation? I don't have a problem with it in contemporary images when applied by the original photographer (to remove power lines, etc.), but it feels a little more dubious to me in historical documents. Crawdad Blues (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. Now, photos being cropped and retouched for publication is hardly a new thing, and I think we can occassionally get a bit too eager to respect original intent that we ignore that cameras have fixed aspect ratios, so working from an original can mean we're including things never meant to be included. There's ways of cropping some of the observer that would still look good, I'm just unsure as to whether we should. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs} 16:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is already a (tight) crowded frame. Cropping it would make it more so. Personally I prefer keeping the open space on the bottom. Bammesk (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be OK, too. – Sca (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I wasn't actually suggesting cropping or other additional editing. I was simply explaining that the composition and the crowded frame seem to me less than ideal, and that affects my support for the nomination. Choliamb (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too posed. And the person bottom right intrudes. We should not crop historical photos but judge them as they are (restored where necessary). Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Auxiliary Territorial Service (ATS) women working on a Churchill tank at a Royal Army Ordnance Corps depot, 10 October 1942. H24517 - Restoration.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B-2 Stealth Bomber

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2022 at 17:47:02 (UTC)

Reason: B-2 Spirit bomber in flight. This is a heavy bomber with a wingspan of 52 meters, it is also a stealth bomber. This semi profile view highlights the two dimensional and seamless design of the aircraft. It is a distinct feature for evading radar detection (as well as infrared detection). We have a lower pixel count 2007 FP of this aircraft, it shows more of the body. But I think the nominated view, showing the slim (detection evading) design, is deserving of a nomination. The bomber has been in operation since 1997 and is to be replaced in 2032 with the B-21.
Articles in which this image appears: Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air
Creator: Balon Greyjoy

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think this image is valuable for showing how slim it is, but it's used terribly. It's placed under "2000s" despite being from the 2010s. It's way, way down in the article, which isn't itself a problem, but the caption is "The Spirit of Missouri at the Dyess AFB air show in 2018" - which isn't really adding anything to the section it's in. I think it's a good image, but needs better usage. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs} 18:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the photo to the 2010 section; not sure what would be a better caption. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as creator Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it does, at least, cover aspects no other photo does. Might be nice to draw attention to, y'know, the two-dimensional and seamless design in the caption. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 04:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I updated the article's caption. Bammesk (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank ye kindly. Hopefully this'll pass, if not, I'd suggest a renom in a bit Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 18:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support As noted in the nomination, this image does a good job of illustrating the B-2's unusual design. Nick-D (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lost in the article Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't see a photo's exact placement in an article as a criterion for FP. --Janke | Talk 17:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:B-2 Spirit Dyess AFB Air Show 2018.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acer negundo

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2022 at 19:14:21 (UTC)

Reason: Was seen on Commons FPC two weeks ago, where it was featured unanimously.
Articles in which this image appears: Acer negundo
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
Creator: Ivar Leidus

Support as nominator – MER-C 19:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs} 18:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Janke | Talk 17:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Acer negundo female flowers - Keila.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow-bellied flyrobin

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2022 at 19:18:23 (UTC)

Reason: Was seen on Commons FPC two months ago, where it was featured unanimously.
Articles in which this image appears: Yellow-bellied flyrobin
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: John Harrison

Support as nominator – MER-C 19:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - High quality and main image of its article. (As a side note, the background of this image is really impressive :). --Nythar (💬-🎃) 23:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Choliamb (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – --Janke | Talk 09:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Yellow-bellied Flyrobin 0A2A7419.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Hill

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2022 at 17:59:51 (UTC)

Reason: Quite a nice photograph for the era. Has a lot of personality to it. FP on Commons already. Forgive me; I have a lot of images I've been holding back on due to the FPC slowdown and an attempt to find a personally meaningful one for my 600th.
Articles in which this image appears: Caroline Hill (lead), The Palace of Truth (cast section)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator: London Stereoscopic and Photographic Company, restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs} 17:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Choliamb (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The dark spot to the left of her upper nose looks odd. Should it be touched up? Bammesk (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 23:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 17:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Caroline Hill as Mirza in W. S. Gilbert's The Palace of Truth.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental rugs advertisement

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2022 at 21:31:06 (UTC)

Reason: Orientalist, but that's somewhat to be expected for what it is. Artwork's quite good, helps illustrate several articles. Passed Commons FPC quite easily.
Articles in which this image appears: Eugène Grasset, oriental rugs, orientalism
FP category for this image: Feels like Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle is the best fit. There's other advertisements there.
Creator: Eugène Grasset, restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 21:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I think the colors are a bit overdone, something closer to the original would be an improvement IMO. Not a deal breaker though. Nice restoration as usual. Bammesk (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yes, Edward Said would hate it. But it's beautifully done, and I am awarding extra credit for the camel. Choliamb (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 17:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Petar Milošević (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Eugène Grasset - A La Place Clichy.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foden steam wagon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2022 at 20:43:19 (UTC)

Reason: sharp high res pic of a steam wagon in operational condition against a clean background.
Articles in which this image appears: Foden Trucks
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land
Creator: Geni

Support as nominator – ©Geni (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Anything steam gets my support... [7] ;-) --Janke | Talk 13:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'd make a good barrista, then. – Sca (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support – It's a lovely vehicle and a very nice photo. The only blemish for me is the presence of the driver. I wish he weren't there; to me his striped shirt and his bare arm and orange wristband are a distraction, albeit a minor one. Choliamb (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 04:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, the driver is a little distracting, but it doesn't detract from the overall quality of the picture. —Bruce1ee ^talk 15:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 17:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Foden 1930 steam wagon GDSF 2022 139.JPG --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdi İpekçi Peace Monument

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2022 at 19:58:52 (UTC)

Reason: It's the highest resolution and sharpest and best contrast image available of the monument. It also shows the entirety of the monument and its details clearly. I think it adds significant encyclopaedic value because the aspects of the description in the article about the monument such as the dove at the top, the arch, the children holding up the main bust of Abdi İpekçi are clearly identifiable elements.
Articles in which this image appears: Abdi İpekçi Peace Monument
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture
Creator: Naz Aybey

Support as nominator – Gazozlu (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Quite grainy when you zoom in, no? Nythar (💬-🎃) 20:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat. -- Sca (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, plus top-right corner is jarringly overexposed. MER-C 18:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cluttered composition. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JFK inaugural address

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2022 at 15:02:57 (UTC)

Original – John F. Kennedy being sworn in as president of the United States and delivering his inaugural address, 1961.

Reason: Inaugural speech of American president John F. Kennedy in 1961. Given the passage of six decades, the event and speech is now more a part of history as opposed to contemporary politics. It's a notable marking point in American history. This nom was proposed a month ago by User:GamerPro64 [8], but since they didn't act on it, I am nominating it. I will convert the file format to WebM once this nom gets a few supports.
Articles in which this image appears: Inauguration of John F. Kennedy
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History
Creator: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

will support HD version. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iconic. I wonder, though, if there is a higher-resolution file available? This is only pretty fuzzy SD quality, while you can get Full-HD and even more from a 16 mm original film... If such a file is found, I'd support. --Janke | Talk 17:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an HD version Here. It is not published by the Kennedy Library though, but by the Kennedy Center. And it has a border, an opening and a closing (attribution) frame. Bammesk (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be entirely possible to extract the movie frame without borders, and insert it into the FPC video. That couldn't be a copyvio, right? (Apparently, the first sentence was lost in the video, as in the Kennedy Center video?). --Janke | Talk 13:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can extract it and upload it as a separate file. Since the SD version is public domain, the HD version must be public domain too. A higher resolution scan doesn't justify new copyright, as far as I know. The last frame of the HD video credits the Kennedy Library as the source, so the HD scan was done by the Kennedy Library. Bammesk (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest a new nomination, though, given how close to closing this is. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 15:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's better to do a new nomination later. Bammesk (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Theora video is obsolete. - hahnch e n 20:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the reason section, the nomination is for a WebM version of this video. Bammesk (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ringlet

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2022 at 18:07:19 (UTC)

Reason: High resolution, well executed focus stack. Alternative was featured unanimously on Commons two months ago.
Articles in which this image appears: Ringlet
FP category for this image: Insects
Creator: Ivar Leidus

Support as nominator – MER-C 18:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I am leaning to support the original (very detailed at full size). We have a similar FP: [9] in the article though. Bammesk (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I hadn't noticed that Ivar Leidus had moved my image. This nomination is a worthy Commons FP and has more detail than mine [10]. However this image has less EV as only the hindwing underside is shown. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – As a high-resolution image, the nominated photo is excellent, but I agree with Charlesjsharp that his photo is better suited to be an illustration of the species in an encyclopedia, since it shows both wings and provides a more complete view of the butterfly itself. I think it should be moved back to its place as the primary image in the article. (On the other hand, I really admire Ivar's alternative photo, because photos of lepidoptera are almost always of single individuals. This is an unusual and very striking image of two individuals, and I think it was right to be featured at the Commons.) Choliamb (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neue Nationalgalerie

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2022 at 17:56:43 (UTC)

Reason: Was just seen on Commons FPC, where it was featured unanimously. Could be part of a set with File:Berlin Neue Nationalgalerie asv2021-11 img2.jpg.
Articles in which this image appears: Neue Nationalgalerie
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: A.Savin

Support as nominator – MER-C 17:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Freedom of Panorama for Germany appears to cover the prominent sculpture fine, so we should be good. Might have a tiny bit of grain, but fine for the lighting. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 20:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Berlin Neue Nationalgalerie asv2021-11 img1.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

European mantis

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2022 at 10:47:27 (UTC)

Reason: High quality image. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: European mantis, Mantis
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator: Charlesjsharp

Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd prefer a picture with a natural background, not fabric. --Janke | Talk 17:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind the fabric much. Insects land on clothing sometimes. Good opportunism. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 19:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juvenile hawfinch

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2022 at 10:38:27 (UTC)

Reason: High quality image. FP on Commons. As juvenile, not in infobox but high EV as very different from adult bird.
Articles in which this image appears: Hawfinch
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: Charlesjsharp

Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I did tweak the article a little bit though: Don't know why the picture of the hawfinch head was gigantic compared to all the other images. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 19:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 11:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clouded yellows mating

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2022 at 10:33:43 (UTC)

Reason: High quality image. FP on Commons. As mating image, not in infobox but high EV.
Articles in which this image appears: Colias croceus
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator: Charlesjsharp

Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 13:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Choliamb (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Janke | Talk 17:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 11:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Clouded yellows (Colias croceus) mating Bulgaria.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael William Balfe

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2022 at 13:45:43 (UTC)

Reason: Balfe died in 1870, which limits options for photos quite severely, but we still have a rather good one, from Nadar's studio, no less. I'd say it's excellent for the photographic era.
Articles in which this image appears: Michael William Balfe + 4 operas
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator: Atelier Nadar, restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 13:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Choliamb (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 11:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Michael William Balfe - Atelier Nadar.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Levitan: Golden Autumn

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2022 at 18:06:40 (UTC)

Reason: An evocative example of this artist's ouvre.
Articles in which this image appears: Isaac Levitan
FP category for this image: Art, architecture and archaeology
Creator: Russian Museum

Support as nominator – Sca (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lost in a gallery. Doesn't seem that this is his master work. The extracted images appear to be of higher resolution than the main one. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but not because of placement in the article, rather for severe reflections in the paint at lower right. --Janke | Talk 20:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Geisha

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2022 at 18:45:00 (UTC)

Reason: Important in the development of the musical, if basically unperformable today (even if we excuse the orientalism, the plot hinging around selling off women to the highest bidder is not going to go down well on the modern stage), this poster is gorgeously made, and shows off the spectacle of the musical's first scene. Featured on Commons, but, since the actual artist is uncredited, I uploaded a copy here as well as it's definitely out of copyright in the U.S.. (Only ever needed this once (and it was in a case I thought to be especially likely to trigger), but better to play it safe, right?)
Articles in which this image appears: The Geisha
FP category for this image: WP:FP/THEATRE
Creator: David Allen and Sons, restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 18:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is quite a late production, so little EV. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that late: 1906 vs. an 1896 premiere (and the premiere production ran until about 1899, so even less time, really). I know Gilbert and Sullivan used basically Gilbert's production notes for about 70 years, so I'd say this is well within the original production's tradition.

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 19:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 11:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Euphrosyne Parepa-Rosa

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2022 at 05:05:48 (UTC)

Reason: Notable opera singer, died in 1874 which means photography is limited to the earlier eras, but still decent enough. This is the left half of a stereoscopic work, since I'm not even sure stereoscopic restoration tools exist, but I used the right image to confirm what was damage. Crop is pretty maximal.
Articles in which this image appears: Euphrosyne Parepa-Rosa, Carl Rosa, +1 just added
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator: Jeremiah Gurney, restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 05:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 11:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Jeremiah Gurney - Photograph of Euphrosyne Parepa-Rosa.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Sensation Novel (redux)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2022 at 08:07:44 (UTC)

Reason: Barely missed passing in one of the worst months for FPs (we had only 12 in all of October, which is very, very bad). It does a really good job at depicting the nature of the opera: characters from a melodramatic book coming to life at the end of each volume. Indeed, this is one of those images that biographies of Gilbert love commenting on.
Articles in which this image appears: A Sensation Novel, German Reed Entertainments, Thomas German Reed, Royal Gallery of Illustration
FP category for this image: WP:FP/THEATRE
Creator: Robert Jacob Hamerton, restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 08:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Another excellent restoration. By the way, Adam Cuerden, is image restoration as easy as you make it seem? (I know very little about the subject.) Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's... something I'm been doing for fifteen years, and I think I've gotten a lot faster over that time. I'd say it depends on the image. Some are nightmarish little puzzles to spot what should be there under the damage - consider the hair in this image of Bret Harte. Some are basic dust and speck removal. A rare few are are reassembly puzzles. One of the bigger challenges is getting the borders, surprisingly enough. You want a nice, even-coloured paper edge, and that can be a lot of dodge/burn (lightening and darkening tools) at low percentages; lots of use of the healing brush; lots of things. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 08:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The results are worth the effort, though. I do like scrolling through your user page sometimes. Seeing historical images so unblemished is something that interests me; a different way of seeing the past. Thanks for that! — Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped something on your talk page that may be of interest.... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 08:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 11:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per previous nom. Bammesk (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Choliamb (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Robert Jacob Hamerton - Poster for A Sensation Novel.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somapura Mahavihara

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2022 at 12:04:03 (UTC)

Reason: Was seen on Commons FPC two weeks ago, where it was featured unanimously. World Heritage site. Has EV separate from all other images by showing symmetry.
Articles in which this image appears: Somapura Mahavihara
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Md. Ahsanul Haque Nayem

Support as nominator – MER-C 12:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I was thinking of nominating this as well. Eye-catching, well done photo, and I agree with the EV rationale above. Bammesk (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Janke | Talk 15:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slightly better in the middle than at the edges, but that's just the nature of photography and projections. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 20:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Choliamb (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good image, but this is not the best representation of the subject possible. The aerial view squashes any sense of depth and poorly portrays the monument's true nature. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why there are other photos in the article... ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Aerial view of Somapura Mahavihara.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic Varieties Map

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2022 at 07:57:37 (UTC)

Reason: First and only sourced (verifiable against high-quality reliable sources) high-quality (high resolution, SVG, colorblind friendly, internationalized) map of Arabic varieties we have
Articles in which this image appears: Arabic (level-3 vital article), Varieties of Arabic, Levantine Arabic (level-5 vital article)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps
Creator: Goran_tek-en

Support as nominator – A455bcd9 (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

I think it's a great map, but I have to admit to some issues:

First off, while it does have a zoom in on the world that's... probably unnecessary, it lacks a key on the map itself, which means the key doesn't appear in any of the articles it's in; ideally, an image should be understandable as used in the article, or at least after expanded in size using Media Viewer. It uses numbers instead of labels, and one single variety of Arabic (Nubi) uses stripes, which are otherwise said to indicate widespread/mixed usage. Further, it's not clear what, if any, difference is between solid, striped and spotted. (Striped and spotted are both labelled as meaning "speakers are widespread over this area", which is kind of the same as you'd presume for the solid coloured)

Randomly positioned spots are only used for 10's overlap with 11/12, everywhere else, overlap is done using a hexagonal grid striped with spots. What's the point of the random spots for 10, then? Do the widths matter? 6 and 9's overlap is done differently than any other overlap.

It puts number labels on the map, but not words. That does simplify internationalisation, but at the cost of making it less useful. Simply replacing the numbers with words would instantly turn this into a labelled map, as it is, unless you click through to the file description page, what the colours mean is completely unknowable.

It uses lots of subtly different green shades, so it's probably for the best the colours are also labelled. I'd hate to try to colour match between, say, South Levantine Arabic and Hadrami Arabic. Libyan Arabic and Gulf Arabic are also quite close, as are Tunisian Arabic and Egyptian Arabic, or Chadian and Omani. Luckily, all these are geographically seperated from each other, which mitigates the issue, but, again, it does mean a simple word label would do.

I don't get the number order. Why is 31 at the extreme south side of the map next to 12, for instance, when 29 and 30 are in the Mediterranean? Why is 13 right of 14 and 15? Why is 20 the other side of the Middle East from 18, 19, 21, and 22?

It feels like this is so very nearly there, but there's enough I don't get that I can't support. A lot of work has gone into this, and I appreciate that, but it feels like this needed a round of feedback. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 09:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your feedback.

It's on purpose that there's no labels on the map. Then any Wikimedia project can reuse this map and add a clickable and editable legend in their own language below, example in Frysk. Isn't this the best practice recommended by ?

I'll answer your other points later today. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's recommended to have a version without Language-dependant labels, but that doesn't make that version the best one for specific language Wikipedias. Basically, it's great to have that for ones that haven't been translated to your language, and that might well be the one Commons would feature, but English Wikipedia FPC looks at it from solely the English Wikipedia perspective. and, combined with the number order being a bit odd and some colours being very similar, it makes it a lot harder to use. You have to constantly jump back and forth between the image and list. Basically, being language-neutral is a good thing for Commons, as it means any Wikipedia can use it, but it's more of a "we haven't translated this to your language" stopgap. At English Wikipedia Featured Pictures, we kind of have to judge it explicitly for use on here.

Don't get me wrong. I think this should pass, but it needs a little work first. And I really hate giving this much feedback on your first FPC nom, but SVG diagrams.. are not easy. They're probably the hardest type of content to get through FPC, because being made by Wikipedians and being so editable, there's an assumption that they're going to be polished to perfection by the time they pass (and I'm really wishing I had kept up my Inkscape skills so I could help more with this). Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 10:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I understand. I don't think anyone will add the legend to the map, so if that's a requirement for EN WP FP then I prefer to withdraw this FPC.

That being said, thanks again for your feedback: your points regarding Nubi, solid/striped/dotted, "6 and 9's overlap is done differently than any other overlap", and the colors are valid and I'll see what we can do to improve them.

Regarding the number order: it's more or less West to East. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 are weird Arabic varieties, often called "language islands" in the literature, and often shown differently on maps. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, I think my issue is more that the numbers aren't listed on the Wikipedia pages more than on the map. Since this is pretty important to the articles, could we make it substantially larger and put the numbered list in the captions? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 02:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, regarding just the part of your comment about the captions, the captions in the first two articles: Arabic, Varieties of Arabic, do have a full numbered list (I wonder if you saw it). The caption in the third article: Levantine Arabic has an abbreviated list, I suppose because that's sufficient in that article. Bammesk (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, think I got confused somehow. That'll deal with the problem of labelling, though the dotting and striping issues need dealt with. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 04:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, back to number order. I'd say the numbering for the Middle East is still a bit weird, 20 being the oddest, as it's nowhere near any other consecutive number, and 13 being a bit strange. 8 is in the Sinai penninsula, and should maybe be renumbered into the Asian numberings instead of the otherwise consistent African numberings, but it doesn't seem that bad. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 05:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we dealt with the problem of labelling.

Regarding numbering: I think 13 is okay. 8 is "Eastern Egyptian Bedawi", besides the Sinai, it's also on the eastern coast of Egypt (along the Red Sea), so that's why it's after 7 (Egyptian Arabic). 20 is odd indeed.

Regarding dotting and striping, I added the following legend based on the main source:

Solid area fill: variety natively spoken by at least 25% of the population of that area or variety indigenous to that area only
Hatched area fill: minority scattered over the area
Dotted area fill: speakers of this variety are mixed with speakers of other Arabic varieties in the area

What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One potential solution to the number order (if that's really a problem) that minimizes changes:

20 -> 13 (as 20 is spoken in Eastern Africa)
13 -> 18
18 -> 19
19 -> 20

An even simpler change would be 20<>13. A455bcd9 (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that would work. It makes things a little easier to find. I would probably upload it as a new file, though, since the file seems to be used on a lot of Wikipedias, and a gradual changeover is easier than trying to push a mass update. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 23:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Goran tek-en: what do you think? I think we could upload as a new version (instead of a new file) and I'll take care of updating the various Wikimedia projects accordingly (I checked and only 3 have numbered legends, so it'll be fairly easy). A455bcd9 (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A455bcd9 @Adam Cuerden There is so much text here I don't really know which part/edit you mean, please make it more specific and easy to see, thanks.

For New Version or New File, to me it should be a New Version of course. Uploading a New File will only make it all more confusing, remember that most people do not have yours knowledge about this. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Goran tek-en: Adam mentioned that the number order is "a bit odd". To solve this I suggested either to switch 13 and 20 (solution A) or to switch the following: 13->18->19->20 (solution B). Do you think it makes sense to change the number order? If so, which solution do you prefer? Thanks for your help. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A455bcd9 To my understanding there is no straight order; top-bottom or left-right or similar. Using country names would also be confusing, using an alphabetic order for the dialects would be an option but that would be more for the readability of the legend not for the map itself. #31 is the only one sticking out for me but I can't see any really good swap which will make stuff so much better.

So my answer (being an image person) is, No I can't see any big gain in changing around the numbers. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Goran tek-en: that's okay for me! (btw, I think Adam's point was that currently the order is more or less west to east, with the exception of "20" and of 29, 30, 31. But I said above that 29, 30, 31 are a bit special Arabic varieties (and the first two are islands) so it's fine to have them numbered at the end. So the only remaining issue was "20" that I then suggested to switch with 13 to have a better west->east order) A455bcd9 (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A455bcd9 That is up to you, just tell me directly which you want me to which. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as it doesn't add any encyclopedic value and misleads the readers. While the map is supposedly sourced (it's more like a synthesis of various maps published by an evangelical Christian organization that doesn't submit itself to any kind of academic review), it's full of errors (some of them already highlighted on Commons and more will follow). M.Bitton (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

FYI, this "an evangelical Christian organization that doesn't submit itself to any kind of academic review" (SIL International) is the registration authority for the ISO 639-3 standard which is the international standard for language codes. And the main source (Ethnologue, published by SIL) is considered "the standard reference" in linguistics. I don't think the religious affiliation of the publisher affects reliability. For instance The Christian Science Monitor is considered a reliable source on the English Wikipedia per Wikipedia:CSMONITOR. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being a registration authority (just like the Library of Congress) is meaningless and doesn't change anything to the facts that: a) it's an evangelical Christian organization that doesn't submit itself to any kind of academic review and b) its maps are riddled with asinine errors. M.Bitton (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"asinine errors": could you please elaborate and provide reliable sources pointing to these asinine errors? A455bcd9 (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many errors does a map need to have before it's considered totally unreliable and unusable on en.wp? M.Bitton (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please elaborate and provide reliable sources pointing to at least one asinine error? A455bcd9 (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would one be enough to consider this map as totally unreliable and unusable on en.wp? M.Bitton (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. My only goal is to improve this map. So if you could point to errors it would be super useful. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(FYI this map is currently used in about 250 articles on more than 100 Wikimedia projects, including the Arabic Wikipedia) A455bcd9 (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to mention that you added it to all those articles.

Anyway, I'm not interested in improving either this map or the one that it replaced (because it had errors, even though it was used by reliable sources). Since you're no willing to answer the question, I will ping the other editors (@IOIOI, High surv, and Pathawi:) who were involved in the other discussion and see what they have to say about a map that is being presented as the mother of all maps. I will also leave a note on the concerned countries' projects to attract more input. M.Bitton (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you aggressive? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If stating facts (also "forgotten ones") is being aggressive, then I have nothing more to say to you. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I felt aggressed. And yes, I added the map to most of those articles and they're still there 2 weeks later. This map is far from perfect and we're working with High surv and Pathawi to improve it. We've already implemented one of High surv's feedback (issues in Bahrain) and I hope we'll be able to improve it further. That's why, again, if you could provide reliable sources pointing to asinine errors it would be extremely useful. A455bcd9 (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at Dhofari Arabic (No.23) and the map area on this map does not agree wuith the map and description on the English Wikipedia article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

The map used on Wikipedia is OR so I don't know what we can conclude from it. The Wikipedia article uses the 2015 edition of Ethnologue as a source for the location of the language. According to this source, Dhofari is only spoken in Oman, more specifically around Salalah in the Dhofar Governorate. This is confirmed by the 2022 edition of Ethnologue and by the other source cited in the article Coastal Dhofari Arabic ("a hitherto neglected Arabic dialect found in southern Oman"). Glottolog's map also shows Dhofari in the same region. Conclusion: I removed the inaccurate map and updated the location. A455bcd9 (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: forgot to ping you on my above comment, sorry. I'd love to know your opinion. A455bcd9 (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that edit - but see my comment on Commons FP - each dialect I check is inconsistent with Wikipedia. Sorry. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: I don't know whether I should answer here or on Commons so I'll do both The source used in Ethnologue and I let you see here what fellow linguists think about Ethnologue. tl;dr: it is considered excellent. So if there are inconsistencies with other maps on Wikipedia, it's either that these maps are wrong and/or that they are unsourced WP:OR. Do you have a specific example of another inconsistency? A455bcd9 (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No… It is definitely not the case that linguists by & large consider Ethnologue "excellent". Plenty of academic linguists cite Ethnologue uncritically in peer-reviewed journals, but it's also not hard at all to find criticisms. I think the situation in 2022 is that it would be equally hard to support the argument that a) Ethnologue is generally considered some sort of standard source among linguists & the argument that b) Ethnologue is not considered a reliable source in linguistics. I think that the WikiProject Languages page that you directed me to earlier is precisely right: Use Ethnologue. Check its sources. Go with better sources when they're available. Pathawi (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pathawi, when I said it's "excellent" it was based on Ethnologue#Reception_and_reliability. Do you have reliable sources saying that Ethnologue is bad? A455bcd9 (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do! Well: I can show you reliable sources that describe Ethnologue as being of variable quality, or having a skewed viewpoint. & it really doesn't matter. I'd say that Ethnologue#Reception_and_reliability represents a range of opinions: not a consensus of excellence. (The first ¶ is majority positive.) I'm not interested in undermining Ethnologue as a resource. I think that for individual languages there are frequently far preferable resources. Pathawi (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose reluctantly. This map evidences a lot of work on the parts of A455bcd9 and Goran tek-en. They are attempting to address what has been a very serious issue in Arabic dialect maps on Wikipedia, & I think that this map is a great improvement over what came before. I'm sure that there are errors in this map, but they are relatively minor, compared to a previous map that was riddled with problems—dialects in the wrong country, dialects that didn't exist… I'm grateful for their effort & I think that Wikipedia is better for it. However, I don't think that right now is the right time to feature this map. I'll explain it as three reasons (tho they bleed into one another):

I think that the map actually should probably be around a little longer. We should expect that there's going to be a bit more review from other parties before there's a relatively stable version. Multiple possible changes are currently being discussed.
I think that Ethnologue should really be a source of last resort, rather than a preferred source. Ethnologue is not subject to academic review. In fact, I suspect that if we were to be strict about these things that it would not qualify as a reliable source. I disagree with the characterisation of Ethnologue as the "standard reference" in linguistics—it is certainly cited in scholarly work in linguistics, but it's also frequently criticised by scholarly work in linguistics. I am not interested in discarding Ethnologue as a source tout court, but I think that sources that are subject to academic review should be preferred (taking account, of course, of other reliable source criteria like age).
The creator of the map currently holds that as this map is hosted on Wikimedia Commons it is not subject to Wikipedia reliable source criteria, & requests that others not edit the map without the creator's consent [11]. This is really the biggest issue for me, & maybe encompasses the previous point. I think this map really needs to be subject to Wikipedia guidelines for it to be considered as a featured image.

I would love to support this map in the future on a re-nomination, but I think some time is needed to work these issues out. Pathawi (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content

Hi @Pathawi! Thanks for providing valuable feedback as usual :)

Yes, it may be better to wait longer. In the meantime, it's still good to get feedback here on how we can improve the map I think.
I think Ethnologue is good. But we may find a better source. I opened a discussion regarding Ethnologue's reliability, feel free to contribute.
If this map becomes a featured picture, then we can always upload new versions under another map. Similarly, Goran tek-en's request not to edit the map is irrelevant here as we can still create a new updated map under a new name.

Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need to go on to other things for today, but with regard to #3: We can do that, but that would be a different image—not this one. As long as we're using this file, I do think that that issue is relevant. Pathawi (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On #3 I think we need @Adam Cuerden's help: if we upload a new version on Commons for this map (for instance to change a language's border or fix any other issue): would the "featured picture" status be kept for the new version? Or is it recommended not to upload new versions for featured pictures and instead to upload new images under another name? I assume this issue arises rarely with featured pictures as most of them aren't technical drawings or maps that can be regularly updated. A455bcd9 (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A455bcd9 @Pathawi and others. Yes I know that my "request" " Please do not edit ... or upload a new version" is a bit hard and I'm not really happy about it. But my experience with complex maps/illustrations that has been edited in several steps and then later on I'm requested to fix the problems has made me put this out. I don't tell any one what to do, I ask for cooperation.

I see the problem but I didn't have any other solution to my initial problem.

If this is a big thing I will remove this template and all together stop using it although it will produce more problems.

Actually others think this is a good thing and it's now translate ted to German and it has been improved so it will take the Authors name and can thereby be used generally, thanks to Aristeas. Featured_picture_candidates and Template_talk:No_edit_no_revision --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Goran tek-en: I agree, the template doesn't pose any problem, as you said, it's just a request for cooperation. A455bcd9 (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the exact phrasing is probably the issue. Big text saying it's widely used with captions in the articles duplicating the details of the map as it is and thus variants should be uploaded as new files is probably the best.

As for #3, the featured picture on changes issue, it varies, but there's a procedure, "Delist and replace" that's usually quick and free of controversy to switch things over. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 06:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback @Adam Cuerden. So I consider that #3 isn't an issue anymore. Do you agree @Pathawi? Similarly, #2 is a question that is broader than this FPC and should be addressed somewhere else. So far, Ethnologue has been considered reliable on the English Wikipedia and this FPC relies on Ethnologue, so I consider that this FPC satisfies the 6th criterion ("Is verifiable"). What do you think @Pathawi? Then your #1 remains. Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't agree that either of these is resolved. The issue in #3 isn't that the map could be changed in the future. The issue is that it really needs to be subject to Wikipedia reliable sourcing policy. If the map were subject to reliable sourcing policy, I'd have no problem at all with approving a map now that future sources led us to change, & I certainly wouldn't object to those future changes. As for #2, I'm not saying Ethnologue isn't a reliable source (tho I think if we treated the policy strictly there would need to be a bigger conversation about Ethnologue than I've seen anywhere on Wikipedia yet)—I'm saying that by our reliable source policy we should prefer material from scholarly sources over Ethnologue (with caveats, of course, like age of source, additional caution for dissertations, &c). Pathawi (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pathawi, I'm not sure I understand you. My point is that this FPC is only about THIS version of the map. And I consider that this version followed the English Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy. Any future update of this map will not automatically be a featured picture. So we should focus on this version alone, and not on potential future updates. That's why I (maybe wrongly?) considered these issues as resolved (for the purpose of this FPC, they're not resolved per se of course). A455bcd9 (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the issue is that the creator of the map considers it not to be subject to Wikipedia's reliable source policy. We need consensus to delist an image. I don't want to create the situation where we feature this map, then it falls afoul of reliable sourcing guidelines, & then it becomes difficult or impossible to delist. It took months to get the previous Arabic dialect map—which included totally fabricated dialects & dialects in wrong countries—removed from Wikipedia. I can't get behind the featuring of a map created for Wikipedia if it's held to be not subject to reliable sourcing guidelines. Pathawi (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pathawi, I don't understand, for me the situation is the following:

If this image isn't modified => no problem
If this image is modified and a new one under a new name is uploaded => no problem
If this image is modified and a new version is uploaded under the same name => potential problem if that new version doesn't follow Wikipedia's guidelines.

So the problem appears only in #3, however:

Goran tek-en is only a graphic designer, they won't upload new version unless asked to in this image's talk page. You'll be able to contribute like everyone else. So most likely, if a new version is uploaded, it means the community will agree with it.
If a new version is uploaded and new or anyone else thinks that the new version doesn't follow Wikipedia's reliable source policy anymore then Adam said that "there's a procedure, "Delist and replace" that's usually quick and free of controversy to switch things over". It'll be super easy to say that, for instance, the new image doesn't respect the 6th criteria anymore because it's OR.

That's why I don't understand what the problem is. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There has already been so much obstructionism with the issue of this map. It took months to get the previous, unsourced, error-riddled map down, & part of the difficulty was that Wikimedia Commons isn't the same body as Wikipedia. I suspect that this map is more contentious than most images that are proposed for featured picture status. I'm sure that Adam Cuerden is right that the delisting process is usually quick & controversy-free, but I don't believe that delisting would end up being straightforward in this case. I have trouble imagining that I'd support featuring this image unless the metadata at Wikimedia Commons made it clear that it was intended to be used for Wikipedia, & was thus subject to English Wikipedia policies & guidelines.

Then we can make it clear on the English Wikipedia during this FPC that only this version will be awarded the "Featured Picture" status and that any newly uploaded version would be automatically delisted and will have to go through the same process again. What do you think @Pathawi? A455bcd9 (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on a polite agreement that I don't trust. (Not that I distrust you: It's that too many other parties can get involved, & there's been lots of chaos thruout this process.) I really don't want to discuss this further: I have too many other things to give my attention to. I can't support this nomination right now for the reasons I said up at the top—none of that has changed. I think that we should continue hashing things out over at Wikimedia Commons, & deal with all of the conversations about sourcing. Hopefully it will be worth discussing this again in the near future.

Could somebody collapse this discussion, please! --Janke | Talk 12:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cinnamon quail-thrush

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2022 at 13:34:02 (UTC)

Reason: Quality lead image of this bird endemic to Australia (arid and semi-arid regions of central Australia).
Articles in which this image appears: Cinnamon quail-thrush
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: JJ Harrison

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, prefer original. MER-C 18:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I usually use feather detail as a good guide to bird photos, and it looks great here. Don't love the blurred foreground (I'd have cropped a bit at the bottom, maybe right as well to centre it a little more while still allowing for the fact it's facing that way), but that may just be me. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 20:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I agree with Adam about the blurred foreground, which I find a little distracting. Otherwise very nice. Choliamb (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I added a cropped version on the side. (feel free to adjust it) I prefer that one. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PerfectSoundWhatever: Do you support both or just the cropped one? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The cropped image is much better. Nythar (💬-🎃) 06:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JJ Harrison is active (semi-active) on en-Wiki and he put the image in the article. If he approves the crop, then I am Ok with it, otherwise I can't support it. I remember him saying the blurring in his photos is intentional (i.e. artistic choice). He lies on the ground to isolate the bird within the DOF, both in foreground and background, plus it gives an eye level view. Bammesk (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support original per above. Might support a crop, but the alt. here is too tightly cropped below the feet. Twice the space would be OK. --Janke | Talk 09:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support original --Muhammad(talk) 09:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden, Choliamb, and Nythar: Could you clarify which version(s) you support? Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I prefer the original to the crop provided. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 14:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support the original one as well, since the cropped image doesn't seem to be very popular. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 20:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like Janke, I think the alternative image offered here is cropped too tightly. Ideally, I'd like to see about half as much taken off the bottom of the original image. But it's not worth splitting hairs at this point. Support the original. Choliamb (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 22:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cinnamon Quail-thrush 0A2A9195.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is consenus that the original uncropped image should be promoted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX CRS-20 mission

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2022 at 01:45:07 (UTC)

Reason: The last Dragon 1 cargo spacecraft approaches the International Space Station to deliver supplies in 2020. The Dragon 1 cargo missions ran from 2010 to 2020. The program was retired in 2020 and was replaced with the Dragon 2 missions which carry both cargo and crew. In this photo, shot 267 miles above earth, Namibia is in the background. I looked at all the Dragon 1 missions and the nom photo is one of the better ones technically and has the distinction of being the last mission and most recent.
Articles in which this image appears: SpaceX CRS-20, +1
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Getting there
Creator: NASA Johnson Space Center, edited by Nythar

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – High resolution, great detail, represents the mission well. Nythar (💬-🎃) 04:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support presuming there's nothing with better focal planes. Would have liked to see the solar panels a bit better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 07:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Janke | Talk 08:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the file to the edited version by User:Nythar, the chromatic aberration is now removed. Pinging participants @Nythar, Adam Cuerden, and Janke:. Bammesk (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. I think we can presume Nythar supports, so just Janke to run it by. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 18:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I used GIMP to edit that image, so I have to thank you for recommending it :-) — Nythar (💬-🎃) 06:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Choliamb (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bammesk The current image in this nomination isn't used in any articles. Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Armbrust: I replaced the image with the improved version. Thanks for the reminder. Bammesk (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:CRS-20 Dragon–Enhanced.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Gurney

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2022 at 20:26:14 (UTC)

Reason: A very nice self-portrait, which does a great job in showing both his photography and himself at the same time. Stumbled on it during the research for the Parepa-Rosa portrait below.
Articles in which this image appears: Jeremiah Gurney, Photographers of the American Civil War
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers
Creator: Jeremiah Gurney restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 20:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – It would be nice to have a FP of his teacher Samuel Morse. Bammesk (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC) . . . . Not enthusiastic though after reading Morse's political views section. But would support for the EV. Bammesk (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bunch of good options here. Do hit the issue of him looking wildly different at different periods. That said, if I find a good image (like this one), I find it better to restore it than to skip it for a potentially "more worthy" one. Especially given the image we had in Gurney before. I spend as much time on research as restoration. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 05:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ech. Well, he wouldn't be the first awful but historically important person I've restored. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 03:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 11:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nythar (💬-🎃) 07:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Self-portrait of Jeremiah Gurney.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Monarch of the Glen

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2022 at 09:40:57 (UTC)

Reason: Very high-resolution image of this artist's most famous painting, of obvious encyclopaedic value to the article The Monarch of the Glen (painting) in particular.
Articles in which this image appears: The Monarch of the Glen (painting), Edwin Landseer, Scottish National Gallery
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: National Galleries of Scotland; uploaded by User:Ayack

Support as nominator – Ham II (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. High-quality museum scan of notable artwork (so notable that it became a cliché). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an ugly verticl crease or fold in the middle of the image - if that can be fixed, I will support. --Janke | Talk 14:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure that's from part of the wood frame of the canvas cracking the paint slightly. Unfortunate, but there, so Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 18:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 11:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:The Monarch of the Glen, Edwin Landseer, 1851.png --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2022 at 18:10:12 (UTC)

Whole
Halved

Reason: This set was seen on Commons FPC this year, and it was featured without opposition.
Articles in which this image appears: Strawberry
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits
Creator: Ivar Leidus

Support as nominator – MER-C 18:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm honestly almost as impressed by the cleanness of that slice as the photography. It's practically a laser cut of the strawberry. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 20:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Very nice photos, laser or razor cut. There is a minor dark spot on the "Whole" image, near the bottom left corner. Bammesk (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice detail. Nythar (💬-🎃) 12:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support High resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Garden strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa) single2.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Garden strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa) halved.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]