Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/September-2018

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.

Anny Duperey

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2018 at 14:58:22 (UTC)

Reason: high quality image used as a lead image
Articles in which this image appears: Anny Duperey
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator: Fernand Michaud, imported and retouched by Yann

Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I found this text on the image's page on Gallica Digital Library, where you can buy copies: © Bibliothèque nationale de France, 2014 - but it is marked as PD (by you?) How do we know it's really copyright free? --Janke | Talk 17:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can buy copies from the BNF, but so what? The BNF also says it is in the public domain, and I reviewed the license. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Probable promotional shot, mediocre resolution, chopped on right. Sca (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ogoy Island

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2018 at 22:50:47 (UTC)

Reason: Stunning photograph, featured on Commons, (and was finalist in their picture of the year 2017). Also won Wiki Loves Earth last year.
Articles in which this image appears: Ogoy Island, Wiki Loves Earth
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: Sergey Pesterev

Support as nominator – — Amakuru (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – An arresting image, but one must wonder what sort of lens was used. Sca (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A 16 mm lens on a full-frame Nikon - as stated in the EXIF data on the image page... ;-) Oppose because it quite misrepresents the island - compare with this: [1] --Janke | Talk 18:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The perspective seriously harms the EV of this image, which is much better served with an aerial photo. (This is why we run our own FPC.) MER-C 19:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Janke. Distorted. – Sca (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Distorted, and shows very little of the island. Mattximus (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Janke, MER-C, Sca, and Mattximus. --The NMI User (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose the image would probably do well as a Commons FP. Here on ENWP, I agree that it's not a good illustration of the subject of the island, although the image could be re-nominated if it's a good illustration for something else. --Pine^✉ 19:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trick water skiier

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2018 at 00:41:47 (UTC)

Reason: High quality action shot.
Articles in which this image appears: water skiing
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Sport
Creator: Isiwal

Support as nominator – — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The NMI User (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Hard to nominate a picture of water skiing without any skis in the picture.... This is not an encyclopedic (descriptive) image of the sport. Mattximus (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – per Mattximus. Bammesk (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per previous. Good shot but lacks EV. Sca (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wooly torch

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2018 at 00:49:49 (UTC)

Reason: High quality image of a fine specimen of a cactus with unusual appearance
Articles in which this image appears: Cleistocactus strausii
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Plants/Others
Creator: Rhododendrites

Support as nominator – — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The NMI User (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - On limited EV. It's not the main image on the page (it's buried in the gallery), also does not show much of the plant at all (heavily cropped), so there is no sense of scale. Mattximus (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: It's not the lead picture because species articles should indeed have the full species in the frame and this, as you point out, does not. However, none of the others have the detail of this one at full resolution, including this other FP of the species. Meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, a good, clear image, but doesn't really have any "wow" factor for me. As Mattximus notes, I'd ideally want to see the base of the plant as well. Bob talk 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson pitcherplant

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2018 at 00:52:27 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality, high EV, already FP on Commons
Articles in which this image appears: Sarracenia leucophylla
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
Creator: Rhododendrites

Support as nominator – — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The NMI User (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – An OK photo and an interesting species. Unfortunately, the article doesn't detail or explain in what respect it is "carnivorous," which would be most readers' first question. Sca (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not wild about the cluttered composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support the composition doesn't bother me, and the most important consideration is the encyclopedic value of the photo. This photo might fail FPC on Commons, but here I think that it fulfills the criteria. --Pine^✉ 19:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of a tornado

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2018 at 00:55:24 (UTC)

Reason: well done composite of 8 images showing the evolution of a single tornado as it moved across the landscape
Articles in which this image appears: Tornado, tornadogenesis, tornado outbreak sequence of May 22–26, 2016
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather
Creator: JasonWeingart

Support as nominator – — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The NMI User (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 11:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Nice. Bammesk (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is only one of many images in the tornado article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is one of only two that has the time aspect to it, and it is the better of the two. MER-C 10:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously spectacular and a well-known image in meteorological circles, but I think it's important to get some temporal context—that is, which side is the "start" of the sequence? Without knowing that, we lose most of the EV for tornadogenesis. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's pretty obvious it's from left to right... What bothers me most, is that at #2 the funnel touches down, but not #3 and #4... Would want an explanation for that in the caption - is such "indecision" common? Also, the caption says 8 images, but I count only to 7... --Janke | Talk 06:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it's so obvious. I'm a meteorologist and I had to briefly stop and consider whether the left side represented the "roping out" dissipation stage. I think we're both agreed though that the image does not take full advantage of its potential EV and leaves lots of questions unanswered. The caption could be a wealth of information about supercell evolution, tornado shapes, the process used in the creation of the image... instead we get little more than is self-evident from the picture itself. I will note that according to the photographer, the 8th image is of the updraft part of the storm (see the upper-left part of the sky). – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah yes I was just going to link to the Commons FPC from earlier this year, where he makes several comments adding context. I don't think I looked too closely at the video he links to at the time. If I had to make a guess now, I'd say that it might not have actually moved left-to-right in smooth succession, and that the different stages may have been laid out as such to show the sequence, when it may have occurred in more wobbly back-and-forth fashion (in which case an image like this would not be possible). That said, because of the editing of the video it's not entirely clear. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Watching the video segment 00:50 to 00:59, it is clear that the sequence is from left to right. Bammesk (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC) . . . Freezing the frames shows minute details where ground meets sky. Those details establish a reference for location. Timing of individual frames establishes a reference for time. Bammesk (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Oppose – Perhaps I'm overly fastidious, but I wonder if some readers might interpret the image – which carries no time-sequence markings – as a photo of one huge, many-tailed storm – ?? Sca (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose per Sca. I think that a better caption and clearer separation of the images are important. The image and caption could be edited to address these concerns, and if the edits were done then I would happily consider changing to support. --Pine^✉ 19:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent van Gogh (Russell painting)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2018 at 01:19:58 (UTC)

Reason: High quality image, good EV and good quality scan. It is the earliest and, according to specialists, most realistic painting of Van Gogh by one of his contemporaries, and reportedly his favourite.
Articles in which this image appears: John Peter Russell, Vincent van Gogh (Russell painting), portrait painting, portraits of Vincent van Gogh, Australian art
FP category for this image: Paintings
Creator: John Peter Russell

Support as nominator – The NMI User (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks like this was nominated before (recently), with no opposition but no quorum. High EV, good quality version of the painting. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 11:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As before. Mattximus (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – From the reader's point of view – and not as an aesthetic critique – that's an exceedingly dark painting. Sca (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – As before. Bammesk (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality, strong EV: what's not to like? Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Vincent van Gogh - s0273V1962 - Van Gogh Museum.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crucibulum spinosum

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2018 at 19:46:31 (UTC)

Reason: Not sure how far standards have risen since the last time I was here way back when, but this photo was unanimously featured on Commons last year.
Articles in which this image appears: Crucibulum spinosum, List of the Cenozoic life of Florida
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Molluscs
Creator: H. Zell

Support as nominator – MER-C 19:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – article is too short, but image has EV and good quality. User:MER-C if you are familiar with the subject, can the article be improved? perhaps the reference link updated? Bammesk (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great EV, but I also share concerns at the article which is just a stub. Mattximus (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per Bammesk and Mattximus. --The NMI User (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stub article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Nine Sovereigns at Windsor for the funeral of King Edward VII

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2018 at 22:31:05 (UTC)

Reason: Encyclopedic image of largest gathering of monarchs in European history.
Articles in which this image appears: Funeral of King Edward VII
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty and nobility
Creator: W. & D. Downey

Support as nominator – PotosinoVeracruzano (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Criteria 2, height is below the 1500 pixel minimum resolution. Bammesk (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too low resolution, lower than the minimum. Mattximus (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a lot of gold braid. Too bad all those mustachioed monarchs, many of whom were related one way or another, couldn't have agreed – four years before WWI – never to go to war. Sca (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose - Per Bammesk and Mattximus. --The NMI User (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Island at Dusk

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2018 at 21:56:28 (UTC)

Reason: A stunning image showing the iconic skyline of Hong Kong Island at dusk. It is a technically well done with perfect stitching and exposure through the entire panorama. This image exemplifies high encyclopedic value, showcasing the world's most impressive works of architecture, civil engineering, and urban planning. The image has appeared in a featured article and a featured list.
Articles in which this image appears: Hong Kong, Victoria Harbour, List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
Creator: temppic

Support as nominator – Nickkpoon (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Criterion 2, this image is under 1000px tall, and it is very not sharp. Chris857 (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on size. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Chris857. Inadmissible. Sca (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Chris857, Juliancolton, and Sca. --The NMI User (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2018 at 08:43:40 (UTC)

Reason: Great image, featured on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Saturn, Cassini–Huygens, etc.
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
Creator: NASA / JPL / Space Science Institute

Support as nominator – The NMI User (talk) 08:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Delicious! --Janke | Talk 09:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist File:Saturn from Cassini Orbiter (2004-10-06).jpg and replace it with this image -- same subject, essentially same composition but this image has superior EV due to the presence of moons. The nominated image has supplanted File:Saturn from Cassini Orbiter (2004-10-06).jpg (which is now relegated to the Saturn navbox) in many of the articles it appears in, including Saturn itself. MER-C 10:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus is not to delist and replace, I support this image as a second preference. MER-C 14:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - lower resolution than the other mentioned by MER-C, but appears crisper and includes 5? moons. High EV. Chris857 (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support new nomination, oppose delist and replace. The earlier FP has plenty of educational and technical quality by today's standards, and unlike the new nomination it shows shadows on the planet's surface from the rings. --Pine^✉ 19:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ (revised vote) – as is. File size is 325KB, it is too small for a 4613x2233 pixel image. But conditional Support if the 30.9MB TIFF original here is converted to jpeg (much larger file size) and uploaded to Commons. Bammesk (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - now in highest jpeg quality, file size now > 2 MB. --Janke | Talk 08:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support – Bammesk (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delist and replace~~ per MER-C. We shouldn't have multiple FPs if one is no longer used in any article outside of the navbox. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to support, since both images now used, per Bammesk's comments. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Agree with Paul_012, we should not have 2 featured pictures of the exact same thing. Mattximus (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I added the image File:Saturn from Cassini Orbiter (2004-10-06).jpg to the two articles listed above. I am for keeping it as FP if the image stays in the articles. According to JPL's description [2], it is the highest resolution (most detailed) image of the planet-and-rings that has been produced. Also 1) it shows the very faint outer F-ring, which is not visible in the nom image, 2) it shows the strong shadows cast on the planet by the rings (upper hemisphere). Bammesk (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – doesn't look like the image I added to the above articles File:Saturn from Cassini Orbiter (2004-10-06).jpg is remaining in those articles. I will work on finding the image a home. I suggest a separate delist nomination at a later time (say a month or so). Bammesk (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Saturn during Equinox.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without prejudice no nominate File:Saturn from Cassini Orbiter (2004-10-06).jpg for delisting, if desired. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notre-Dame Basilica (Montreal)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2018 at 11:14:49 (UTC)

Reason: I think we should have at least one featured picture of this subject and present these featured pictures on Commons (c:Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Notre-Dame Basilica Interior, Montreal, Canada - Diliff.jpg, c:Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica) for consideration.
Articles in which this image appears: Notre-Dame Basilica (Montreal)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: David Iliff (main) and Diego Delso (alternative)

Support as nominator – MER-C 11:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Original is too dark and alternative too cropped. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ – Much as I admire Iliff's work, I have to agree with Charles. And the alternative image looks like it might be oversaturated. Sca (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm going to go against the crowd and support the original, but oppose alternate. It's an extremely well shot image, and the darkness does not bother me since it is likely to be an accurate representation of the interior of this basilica (which are often dark to begin with). So high quality and good EV. Mattximus (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to think about that aspect.... Sca (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support orig. – On second thought, agree with Mattximus. – Sca (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hey, I'm back! (not really, but I did get notified about this and thought it was worth giving my 2c). I have to say that I believe my image is more faithful to the interior (at least when I took it). Mine was taken in January in midwinter, so there is no ambient light from outside, whereas I understand Diego's image was taken in summer where there is ambient light entering the cathedral. So that partially explains the brightness difference. I do often take issue with how Diego processes his HDR images, I find they are often too bright and don't respect the natural tones of the scene and I think it is also the case here. One thing I would say is that my image actually looks a lot darker in the thumbnail than it does when viewed full screen. I think when viewed full screen it is low-key but all necessary detail clearly visible, with good dynamic range (for a non HDR image from 2006, anyway!). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dave. Sca (talk)

Support – I have been there and it was dark. I don't recall the shadows being as dark as this image, but human eyes do some auto HDR I guess. Would be nice if shadows were brighter but not a deal breaker. Good EV, good quality. Bammesk (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The NMI User (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Notre-Dame Basilica Interior, Montreal, Canada - Diliff.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

African buffalo

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2018 at 10:52:33 (UTC)

Reason: High quality large image. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: African buffalo
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator: Charlesjsharp

Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There's a little saturation on the egret but eh, whatever. It's not a deal breaker. MER-C 19:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The NMI User (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good, good EV. Mattximus (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:African buffalo (Syncerus caffer caffer) male with cattle egret.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

African bush elephant and calf

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2018 at 11:05:48 (UTC)

Reason: High quality large image. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: African bush elephant
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator: Charlesjsharp

Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Pretty nice pachyderms, but shadowed head of mom is somewhat off-putting. Also, could be cropped from left. DOF? Sca (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The NMI User (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Geranium

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2018 at 14:00:58 (UTC)

Reason: representative image, good resolution, shows intricate features of flower, photographed in natural habitat
Articles in which this image appears: Geranium maculatum, Geranium
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
Creator: PhotoDoc

Support as nominator – Hari Krishnan 14:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose – Shallow DOF. Sca (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - significant JPEG artifacts and chromatic aberration in addition to the shallow DOF pointed out by Sca. MER-C 19:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per previous The NMI User (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Stuart House

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2018 at 19:39:11 (UTC)

Reason: Highly detailed, well executed composite of this category A listed building. It's debatable as to whether the image should be cropped to remove a bit of the foreground, but I'll leave that up to you to decide.
Articles in which this image appears: Mount Stuart House
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Colin

Support as nominator – MER-C 19:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support No crop needed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good to me, good EV, but no crop needed Mattximus (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The NMI User (talk) 09:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent photo with strong EV. The foreground seems useful to put the building in its proper context. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWeak Oppose One of the trees slightly covers the building. 344917661X (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But that appears to be a permanent feature? Nick-D (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - To avoid the tree, you'd have to use a different POV and it wouldn't be as effective. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my vote to support per comments above. 344917661X (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mount Stuart House 2018-08-25.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MS Silja Serenade

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2018 at 19:54:11 (UTC)

Reason: Featured image on Commons, de.wp and pl.wp.
Articles in which this image appears: MS Silja Serenade
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water
Creator: Wladyslaw

Support as nominator – MER-C 19:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Illustrates decent article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The NMI User (talk) 09:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice, sharp shot. (And I've travelled on it... ;-) --Janke | Talk 12:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice. --Pine^✉ 05:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Silja Serenade in Stockholm.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Switch Image

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2018 at 20:35:18 (UTC)

**Original** – The Nintendo Switch, a hybrid portable/home console released by Nintendo in 2017. It is shown here in the docked/home mode, with the controllers detached from the main unit and in the included grip.

Reason: High quality image of the Nintendo Switch captured by one of the best photographers on Wikipedia.
Articles in which this image appears: Eighth generation of video game consoles, History of Nintendo, Nintendo Switch, Nintendo video game consoles
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Electronics
Creator: Evan-Amos

Support As nominator. 344917661X (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The NMI User (talk) 09:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Might want to hold this off POTD until the Switch gets discontinued, but no problems from a FPC perspective. MER-C 11:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Free advertising. And object is of no intrinsic visual interest. Boring. Sca (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your second point is the key difference between Commons FPC and en.wp FPC -- this is a legit encyclopedic topic, and we need to illustrate it with a competently done image. Visual wow is not as important here. The advertising concerns can be addressed by not putting this image on the Main Page as POTD until the Switch and its games are no longer sold. The photographer is not being paid to market the Switch, and took this photo as one of many images of consoles. MER-C 14:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, these images are fine for the narrow purpose of illustrating the devices they depict. But they are of zero interest to the great majority of the millions of readers who view the Main Page daily – i.e., those who do not play video games. Sca (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the majority of people visiting the main page have played or currently play video games, wether they are casual gamers, hardcore gamers or people who used to play video games, but have stopped. Just because a picture we feature on the front page isn't interesting to most people, doesn't mean we aren't putting the picture on the front page. 344917661X (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Your being "pretty sure" would seem to be a reflection your personal interests.

• On this page, we aren't putting anything on the "front page." Whether an FP candidate may end up being posted as a TFP on the Main Page depends on its fate here and, as far as I understand it, on choices made by a POTD coordinator. Sca (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want proof that a lot of people play video games, then here's proof [3], according to this chart, 2.3 billion people play video games worldwide, and I find it very likely the a ton of people who visit the front page are active gamers and I could care less if it doesn't get featured on the front page, I just want the picture to get promoted the Featured Picture status. If you think Statista is unreliable, then here's another source that says that nearly 70 percent of Americans play video games [4] and a lot of our viewers come from United states, at least according to alexa internet [5]. Also, like I said before, Just because a picture we feature on the front page isn't interesting to most people, doesn't mean we aren't putting the picture on the front page. Featured Pictures are not determined by popularity, they are determined by the quality of the image. 344917661X (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming your source, Statista, is correct, less than a third (30.6 percent) of the 7.5+ billion population of Earth plays video games. U.S. residents who speak English as a first or second language, totaling 283 million, comprise a mere fraction (3.7 percent) of the global population. Your second source, Variety, says 67 percent of Americans play video games – which based on an English-speaking population of 283 million would be about 190 million, or 2.5 percent of the world population. In no way do these statistics indicate that a majority of readers visiting the Main Page of the English-language Wikipedia play video games.
Photos of modern electronic devices are, for the most part, inherently boring in terms of useful visual information, limiting their interest overwhelmingly to users of such devices. Sca (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there may be no proof that the majority of people visiting the main page play video games, but that is not a determining factor on wether or not a featured picture gets to go on the front page, like I said before, featured pictures are not determined by popularity, they are determined by the quality of the image. If you are going to provide an argument against this picture being promoted to featured article status, it has to be related to problems with the image and not how interesting it would be to most people. 344917661X (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of people aren't interested in specific bird species. The majority of people aren't interested in map projections. As per 344917661X, popularity is fairly irrelevant, and I feel that this specific discussion went a bit off-the-rails. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Chris857 (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think this meets the FP criteria - it's nothing special. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? 344917661X (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a rather boring photo that doesn't show it in portable mode. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would it have been better to nominate a set of this image + File:Nintendo-Switch-wJoyCons-BlRd-Standing-FL.jpg (by the same photographer). Chris857 (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - high-quality image encyclopedically illustrating its subject. Very much the sort of thing Wikipedia needs. TSP (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - High quality image with high EV, as illustrated by its use on no less than five en.wiki articles, and on 26 different projects. Some of the objections above are getting a little silly. There is no requirement that something be a million years old and no longer available for commercial sale in order to be eligible for FP. Anyone is of course welcome to try to reach a community consensus on that point, but I don't think you're gonna get it. GMG ^talk 19:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support on EV grounds, what more could you ask? Mattximus (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Nintendo-Switch-Console-Docked-wJoyConRB.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two juvenile Nubian ibex kids in Mitzpe Ramon, Israel

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2018 at 07:10:18 (UTC)

Reason: EV, clarity, cuteness
Articles in which this image appears: Nubian ibex
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator: Rhododendrites

Support as nominator – The NMI User (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - For the same reasons I nominated this one some months back (see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nubian ibex kids), which was closed as no quorum with 4 supports and 0 opposes. Thanks for renominating, The NMI User. I see it's also nominated on Commons. To me it's a better fit for FP here, given the EV/size tradeoff, but it's been demonstrated that I don't have a great handle on how other people perceive the differences in the processes. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 17:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as on Commons. Size, lighting, techncical quality. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasian brown bear

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2018 at 18:27:16 (UTC)

Reason: Commons FP, main image for the article, and illustrates this animal well
Articles in which this image appears: Eurasian brown bear, Brown bear, List of national animals, Whipsnade Zoo
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator: Francis C. Franklin

Support as nominator – — Amakuru (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - oversharpened, leading to artifacts on fur coat. MER-C 12:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per MER-C. The NMI User (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rwandan genocide

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2018 at 18:50:52 (UTC)

Reason: Commons FP, and it's the main image for the article Rwandan genocide. Displays of the skulls of victims are a common theme in genocide memorial sites across Rwanda.
Articles in which this image appears: Rwandan genocide, Rwanda, Nyamata Genocide Memorial + 33 others
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/War
Creator: Fanny Schertzer

Support as nominator – — Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I can well understand it's a FP on Commons, but the "artistic" framing and lighting with deep shadows lessen the EV here. --Janke | Talk 19:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may think so, but it certainly features in an awful lot of articles and has been the primary image for Rwandan genocide for many years now. — Amakuru (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I partially agree with the concern about EV, but regardless, this image is full of JPEG artifacts and noise. MER-C 12:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it lacks EV, it does not specifically describe any of the three pages it is in. Mattximus (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Previous. The NMI User (talk) 06:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coventry Cathedral

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2018 at 19:06:46 (UTC)

Reason: pic of the old Cathedral, bombed in WW2, which is a Commons FP.
Articles in which this image appears: Coventry Cathedral, Coventry, The Blitz
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Andrew Walker

Support as nominator – — Amakuru (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did also consider nominating this as a set, with File:Coventry Cathedral 2018.jpg, a Commons Quality Picture showing the new cathedral. Not sure on the rules for sets though - they are not by the same creator, for example. If anyone thinks that would work, please let me know and I'll add it in. — Amakuru (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd consider a separate nomination for that image instead. MER-C 20:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. — Amakuru (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The NMI User (talk) 06:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Hmmm, I can't quite come around to giving this a full support due to the soft focus. There's something about the composition being a little too tightly cropped, but if the photographer's back was against the wall I understand - we don't want the entry price for FPC being a full frame camera and $1000+ lenses. MER-C 19:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose due to focus problems at the edges of the frame. I like the composition, but even in 2012 I think that the focus problems should have been a red flag, and in 2018 I think that we should be able to do much better for "Wikipedia's best work". --Pine^✉ 05:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – agree with Pine about the focus, also the sky through the left arched-window is slightly brighter than the other windows! Bammesk (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]