Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/January-2018

Featured Picture Tools

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
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.


Basilica (Oria) - Interior

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2017 at 20:30:01 (UTC)

Original – Basilica (Oria) - Interior
Reason
One of most beautiful church in Salento (Italy)
Articles in which this image appears
Oria Cathedral
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator
LivioAndronico
  • Support as nominator LivioAndronico ( talk) 20:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Technically not great. Slightly tilted; awkward framing, showing an excess of floor. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 18:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment: honestly Paul_021 I do not see where it is tilted and I do not understand what you mean for "awkward framing" for the composition yes, maybe there is too much floor.Thanks -- LivioAndronico ( talk) 13:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Looked closer and you're right. There's not much of actual visible tilt; the perception is mainly from the imperfectly aligned pews. The altar rail also isn't horizontal, but that's probably in the architecture itself. I'm still bothered by the cut-off at the top though. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 16:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with Paul_021, bottom and crop above are not good. -- PetarM ( talk) 09:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Not Promoted -- Armbrust Homunculus 00:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)



Blueberries

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2018 at 09:04:56 (UTC)

OriginalBlueberries
Reason
good quality, replacing older image
Articles in which this image appears
Blueberries
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Creator
Petar Milošević
  • Support as nominatorPetarM ( talk) 09:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Info Stable for a week, replacing older image by user Evan-Amos. I think embalage make too much. And some stack could be done. -- PetarM ( talk) 09:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Not Promoted -- Armbrust Homunculus 12:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)



Martyrdom of Imam Ali

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2018 at 12:12:38 (UTC)

Original – 'Martyrdom of Imam Ali' is a painting by Yousef Abdinejad depicting the assassination incident of Ali ibn Abi Talib by ibn Muljam, while Ali is saying prayer.
Reason
The file is large enough and of a suitable resolution. The EV is already presented in ' Assassination of Ali' where the painting is analysed. Among other things, the painter has tried to show a distinction between the assassin, ibn Muljam, and the target, Ali, by using suitable colors for each case.
Articles in which this image appears
FP category for this image
Paintings
Creator
Yousef abdinejad
  • Support as nominatorhossein talk 12:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Looks like it is scanned from a printed page - unsharp at full size, and horizontal streaks all over. -- Janke | Talk 16:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
    • It was painted on cardboard, which I think is where the horizontal bands come from. And while it is unsharp at full size (which is huge), it's pretty sharp at the minimum FPC resolution. Kaldari ( talk) 00:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support A picture of a beautiful and artistic painting about an important historical event.-- Mbazri ( talk) 10:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment something doesn't look right, it looks awfully soft, like it was a scanned from a photograph in a book and not the painting itself. Is there any info on the source of this image? Mattximus ( talk) 16:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
@ author's weblog. -- hossein talk 19:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Beautiful painting. -- Gnosis ( talk) 13:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Colorful painting nominated to the death of first shia Imam. Lstfllw203 ( talk) 08:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted -- Armbrust Homunculus 13:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust Homunculus 13:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)



Firewheel (Gaillardia pulchella) in Aspen, Colorado

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2018 at 23:02:32 (UTC)

Original – Firewheel (Gaillardia pulchella) in Aspen, Colorado
Reason
Nice color, good quality, Valued Image and Quality Image on Commons
Articles in which this image appears
Gaillardia pulchella, Gaillardia
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Plants/Flowers
Creator
Rhododendrites
  • Support as nominator – — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Is it missing a petal or two? At least that's what it looks like... -- Janke | Talk 12:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The small budding flower in the background shows similar signs. Looking here it is a common feature, not missing. Bammesk ( talk) 16:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – good lighting, composition, has EV. Bammesk ( talk) 16:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support but i suggest a crop -- LivioAndronico ( talk) 18:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Colorful image. Crop on left and bottom could be ideal IMO. -- an O 08:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - In agreement with AntanO Lstfllw203 ( talk) 16:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've added a note to the image. Is that the sort of crop you mean? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Charlesjsharp ( talk) 10:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Good, all in all. -- hossein talk 07:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Promoted File:Gaillardia in Aspen (91273).jpg -- Armbrust Homunculus 16:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)



Cirsium vulgare

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2018 at 01:24:24 (UTC)

Original Cirsium vulgare is a species of the Asteraceae genus Cirsium, native throughout most of Europe, as well as parts of Asia and Africa. The thistle provides a great deal of nectar for pollinators.
Reason
High quality, very illustrative of the flower.
Articles in which this image appears
Cirsium vulgare
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
Creator
Famberhorst
  • Support as nominator –  —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 01:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Comment: You might have cloned out the spider webs... ;-) -- Janke | Talk 08:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good to me, I don't mind the spider webs. Mattximus ( talk) 16:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support nice image, good EV. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • SupportBammesk ( talk) 16:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Thank you Chris Woodrich for nominating my photo. Question: May I actually vote? Famberhorst ( talk) 17:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC) PS: my electronic signature does not work on Wikipedia, but on wikimedia. How is that possible? I do write articles on Wikipedia.
  • Support -- LivioAndronico ( talk) 18:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Charlesjsharp ( talk) 10:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Promoted File:Mooie bloeiwijze van een Speerdistel (Cirsium vulgare) 03.jpg -- Armbrust Homunculus 04:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)



Ipomoea pes-tigridis

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2018 at 08:34:35 (UTC)

Original Ipomoea pes-tigridis is a species of Ipomoea and Convolvulaceae family. It is known as tiger's footprint due to the shape of leaf. It grows in roadsides and sea coasts which sea level is between 0 and 400 m.
Reason
High quality, very illustrative of the Bud of Tiger's footprint.
Articles in which this image appears
Ipomoea pes-tigridis
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others
Creator
AntanO
  • Support as nominatoran O 08:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Wii Willie Wiki 19:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Would like to see a flower, not just an unopened bud. -- Janke | Talk 18:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The plant is famous for the shape of it's leaves, and I'm not sure what this is a picture of, is it the bud of the flower? Either way, no EV for this plant. Mattximus ( talk) 19:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Janke, Mattximus - I don't know how much you are aware of this plant. I have created Ipomoea pes-tigridis and I did not mentioned about this bud since I could not find source. But, I know the bud is unusual and sometime people think it as flower due to its shape. -- an O 02:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -- LivioAndronico ( talk) 20:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose CA -- PetarM ( talk) 21:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted -- Armbrust Homunculus 14:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)



Long-tailed (or crab-eating) macaque

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2018 at 11:07:24 (UTC)

Original – Long-tailed (or crab-eating) macaque in Labuk Bay, Borneo
Reason
High quality image illustrates article well. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Crab-eating macaque
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator
Charlesjsharp
  • Support as nominatorCharlesjsharp ( talk) 11:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Wii Willie Wiki 19:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • What's with the teeth? I'd support something with a closed mouth, but the teeth are too distracting (and variable between specimens) for me.  —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 02:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Needs to see a dentist. ;-) -- Janke | Talk 08:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Chris. Distracting. Sca ( talk) 15:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would have thought that the teeth being visible only adds to the EV. If anything it's a beautiful photograph (very high quality) of a rather ugly-looking animal (by human standards). I'm surprised that the lack of good dentistry is being used as a rationale. nagual design 06:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment So was I. Chris might wish to explain how he can can reject this nomination as "variable between specimens", yet approve the pink flower above when specimens can be blue or green! Reject by all means, but voters (especially the admin) should be consistent in their logic if the FP project is to have credibility. Charlesjsharp ( talk) 10:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I didn't "reject" anything. I simply made a comment. And in case you missed it, my main problem was with this specimen's teeth.  —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 12:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, that is what the other !voters focused on. The teeth. You got comments about them on Commons too. I'm not sure how this is a surprise to you.  —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 12:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry Chris, you did as you say only comment not reject: but you did say "variable between specimens", hence my reaction. Charlesjsharp ( talk) 16:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I did not write "Oppose" in bold. I have no idea where you got the idea that anything other than a support is a rejection.  —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 05:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I apologisd for saying you rejected my nomination. Read what I wrote above. Charlesjsharp ( talk) 09:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @ nagualdesign: The problem is not the visibility of the teeth, per se. The problem is the distraction they pose, which detracts from the aesthetics of the image. It's the same reason people frequently oppose images for having distracting backgrounds, even if technically the images are perfect.  —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 05:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Aesthetics? Be serious. Anthropomorphic judgmentalism has no place here! Charlesjsharp ( talk) 09:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think they're distracting in the same way that backgrounds are sometimes distracting, since they form part of the subject. They certainly draw your attention, but that is not the same as being distracting. I'd say it's the opposite. I expect that a crab-eating animal requires teeth like a can opener. As for the comments on Commons, the image gained unanimous support despite people's jokes about the teeth. Daniel Case's comment about the teeth was, "his teeth, while far from perfect, are better than the mountain gorilla's", and by that I think he was referring to this dentally challenged specimen (also a Featured Picture there). nagual design 01:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The Gorilla is in no way dentally challenged. 100% healthy. It is quite dangerous to make this type of criticism if you are not at all familiar with the species. Blackened teeeth are typical for wild gorillas. Charlesjsharp 11:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Face-grin.svg "Dentally challenged" was just tongue-in-cheek remark, you plonker. It isn't a medical term, and I don't think it was even slightly dangerous. And I am reasonably familiar with the species, thanks. This isn't the nineteeenth century. Are you saying that the macaque's teeth aren't typical? nagual design 12:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Aesthetically pleasing or not, I don't think this photo of this specimen is representative of the species in general. Sure, wild animals often have plenty of health conditions that alter their appearance, but unless I'm mistaken we usually try to feature photos of healthy and intact individuals. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 15:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -- PetarM ( talk) 21:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted -- Armbrust Homunculus 13:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)



Female coastal topi (Damaliscus lunatus topi)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2018 at 10:57:28 (UTC)

Original – Female coastal topi (Damaliscus lunatus topi) in Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda
Reason
Illustrates article well. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Damaliscus lunatus topi
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator
Charlesjsharp

Promoted File:Topi (Damaliscus lunatus topi) female.jpg -- Armbrust Homunculus 13:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)



Helleborus orientalis.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2018 at 13:53:01 (UTC)

Original – a caption for the image, providing adequate context for voters on WP:FPC
Reason
High quality, very illustrative of the flower.
Articles in which this image appears
Helleborus orientalis
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
Creator
-- Famberhorst ( talk) 13:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as nominatorFamberhorst ( talk) 13:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Eye-catching image; I have added it as the lead image in Helleborus orientalis because, unless things have changed since I used to be more active at FPC, it needs to have been in an article here for seven days. The previous image there was added by January 2015 so pinging him to ensure he's aware I've changed it. I would have preferred an article with a bit more substance (regretfully, I don't know enough about the topic to do anything myself) but there is just about sufficient EV provided. Will support if it remains stable in the article. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Hartelijk dank voor uw hulp.-- Famberhorst ( talk) 17:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - clear crisp image of flower, composition nice too. Also better taxobox image....might just have to expand article now. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Can we be sure that a specimen grown in the Netherlands accurately represents the species? Charlesjsharp ( talk) 09:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Answer: Helleborus orientalis with dotted flowers (the so-called 'Freckels') are often hand pollinated in the Netherlands because of the spots. This Helleborus orientalis is in my garden.-- Famberhorst ( talk) 16:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but Helleborus orientalis appears to be a commercially developed product in Europe with many different colours and cannot therefore be representative of the native species. The image that previously illustrated the article is green and from Germany so is not suitable either. Charlesjsharp ( talk) 18:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
What about if we change the label to "cultivated variety?" We (presumably) have Featured Pictures of dog and cat breeds (must check). what we have here is an obscure wild plant that has been bred and cultivated for centuries (much like a rose). I was planning on exoanding the article so we could show both pix FWIW...just hard to get info. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -- LivioAndronico ( talk) 20:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks fine, and if Cas ends up expanding this article and covering the commercial/hand-pollinated version, this will have even better EV.  —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 03:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - now further over the bar for EV after the expansion so far done by Cas (thanks!). SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -- PetarM ( talk) 21:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Promoted File:Helleborus orientalis. Lenteroos 04.JPG -- Armbrust Homunculus 17:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)



Phineas Gage Cased Daguerreotype

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2018 at 18:42:19 (UTC)

Original – Photograph of cased-daguerreotype studio portrait of brain-injury survivor Phineas P. Gage (1823–1860) shown holding the tamping iron which injured him. Includes view of original embossed brass mat.
Reason
After much work (documented on the file talk page) I believe this is now the finest quality hi-res version of this unique historical image available anywhere. Although it's only 811 × 952 pixels I have previously nominated another image under similar circumstances, which is now a Featured Picture.
Articles in which this image appears
Phineas Gage (Well worth a read!)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
Creator
nagualdesign
  • Support as nominator nagual design 18:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – I am Ok with a 1500px exception, it is historic + high EV, I like to support but have two reservations. 1- nom image is derived from a 436×504 pixel original [1], FP criterion 2 says "if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired." Are there any indications why a higher resolution is not realistic? (for example, does the OTRS email say anything, do we know how/where the original photograph is maintained at the university, is it in public display, etc.) 2- regarding the talk page discussion [2], what is the source of this: [3] high res upper body image? can it be uploaded to Commons with a copyright tag? Bammesk ( [4] high resolution but not sharp. Bammesk ( talk) 01:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I made an exhaustive search to find a larger image and the best I could find was this. As I discussed on the image file talk page it's undoubtedly a crop of the original photograph by Jack and Beverly Wilgus. No, I have not contacted anybody by email looking for a higher resolution source, I only looked online. According to the file description the original daguerreotype now resides at the Warren Anatomical Museum, Center for the History of Medicine, Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School. I have no idea whether it's on public display. Although I haven't uploaded the original headshot used to make this image I did upload this, which is also used in the article. There are no hi-res images of the entire thing available, aside from this one. nagual design 01:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Currently we have an OTRS email/permission to use this low resolution image. The nominated image is also derived from this higher resolution version, so we need to know whether or not the higher resolution image can be licensed/uploaded on Commons. The permission section of this page says the copyright holder has sent Wikipedia an email, perhaps the content of the email can clarify things. Bammesk ( talk) 04:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I see what you're saying. My assumption was that since the high resolution image is undoubtedly from the same source it would be permissible under the same licensing conditions. Or rather, that using it as part of the enlarged image would be permissible. I've posted a request at the OTRS Noticeboard. You'll have to forgive my ignorance with this sort of thing. nagual design 05:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Nagualdesign: Sorry, the ticket does not address resolution or any other file.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
As I explained at the file talk page, the hi-res, cropped source image has the same provenance as the low-res, complete source image. They are undoubtedly one and the same, but one of them has been cropped and the other reduced in scale. So where does this leave us? nagual design 05:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Nagualdesign and Bammesk: Perhaps uploader @ Brightbytes: could shed some light on this? I have also reached out via email.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Jeff. nagual design 07:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The Creative Commons' view is that the licensing of a low-resolution work under a CC licence also grants that same licence to higher resolution copies of the same work.[5] We'll probably have to check whether CC was explicitly specified in the OTRS permission. That said, I don't think the "no higher resolution could realistically be acquired" clause can be considered satisfied without someone asking the Warren Anatomical Museum to determine if taking a new photograph is possible. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 15:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank goodness for that! I was beginning to think the image would have to be deleted. I'll look into emailing the Warren Anatomical Museum. Whether they say yes or no, we're still going to end up with a good result. Thanks, Paul. nagual design 15:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I've written an email to Dominic Hall, the curator of the Warren Anatomical Museum. nagual design 16:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Paul_012, 2. An example: a license granting commercial use of a 100x100 pixel scaled-down less-detailed version of an image does not grant permission to profit from a 10000x10000 pixel more-detailed original version of the image. Bammesk ( talk) 03:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that's what the FAQ page says. What I read is that a CC license given to a scaled-down image will also apply to the original from which it was created, as long as no originality was involved in the scaling-down process. This was the subject of a bit of drama back when CC released the FAQ.
As it was demonstrated on the image talk page that 1 (downsampled) and 2 (cropped) are derived from the same original, they can be considered the same work (assuming cropping and downsampling doesn't involve originality). Of course, minus the frame the image would be a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional public domain work of art, which would also be regarded as Public Domain for Wikimedia's purposes. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 10:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Your last sentence settles it. Image 2 is in public domain [8]. I support the nom if image 2 is uploaded to Commons and tagged. In case the original wasn't published/distributed before 1923, then these tags should work: [9], [10]. BTW the museum doesn't allow photography [11]. Sidenote: What I read in [12] and [13] is that a CC license given to image-X will also apply to any image which is created from image-X, as long as no originality was involved in the creation process. It no longer matters for this nom though, with image 2 being in public domain. Bammesk ( talk) 02:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I can't honestly say I understand everything written in the above 3 comments, but it sounds like were okay, right? If you don't mind, I'd appreciate it if someone else uploads the cropped, hi-res image and provides the proper licensing details, since I've been wandering through a few minefields recently and I haven't got the nerve to face another at the moment. Thank you in advance. By the way, I haven't heard back from the curator of the Warren Anatomical Museum, although I did suggest that he might contact the Commons directly and provided him with an email address, so he may have done that. nagual design 05:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted -- Armbrust Homunculus 18:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)



Chartist meeting, 1848

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2018 at 22:18:58 (UTC)

OriginalChartist meeting on 10 April 1848 at Kennington Common by William Edward Kilburn.
Reason
Image of historic gathering in 1848, by notable photographer, restored.
Articles in which this image appears
Chartism, William Edward Kilburn, Kennington Park, Feargus O'Connor, and 5 more
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others
Creator
William Edward Kilburn, restored by Bammesk
  • Support as nominatorBammesk ( talk) 22:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • weak oppose It doesn't transfer main concept. Lstfllw203 ( talk) 17:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • By "concept" I assume you mean: advocacy, reform movements. How well this image conveys the "concept" is debatable. I revised the article list above. This has been the lead image in two articles: Chartism (about 10 years) and William Edward Kilburn (3 years). It has EV in both. Bammesk ( talk) 04:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Nice historical artifact, but image doesn't convey a particular theme or message. Sca ( talk) 17:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Pretty hazy and blurry; while it's definitely better thanthe original, something like this with better color correction and artifact removal would seem like a better candidate. Wii Willie Wiki 20:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • here at the Royal Collection, which has the physical copy. We don't color-correct or crop images of historic works, if published by the museum or gallery holding the actual physical work. That would be original research. Bammesk ( talk) 04:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted -- Armbrust Homunculus 23:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)



Tooth and Tail

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2018 at 05:53:50 (UTC)

Original – A screenshot of the real-time strategy game Tooth and Tail, in which the player assumes the role of a commander of an army of animals.
Reason
I think this image meets the here), good looking, high resolution screenshot that greatly benefits the article. The screenshot is invaluable to the article and has high EV because it shows the reader the HUD, the art-style, and some of the gameplay (structures, units, etc). Though the screenshot's shortest side is less than 1500px, all other featured video game screenshots are under, too. It is unlikely that a screenshot of higher resolution would be obtainable simply due to the limitations of the topic (x1080 and x1440 are the usual resolutions of monitors. x2160 is rare). This is my first featured picture nomination, so I apologise if I missed anything.
Articles in which this image appears
Tooth and Tail
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
Creator
Pocketwatch Games, the developers of the game. Uploaded to Commons by Anarchyte
  • Support as nominator Anarchyte ( work | talk) 05:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Native resolution, so 1500px requirement unrealistic. I would consider the split screen seriously, as in my experience (albeit quite dated; I haven't been anything close to a serious gamer in a decade) split screen RTS multiplayer is very rare.  —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 12:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Crisco 1492: I did consider nominating the split screen screenshot (as you're right, split screen (in general) is rare nowadays) but in my opinion it's too crowded with the two HUDS. It also doesn't include the quest information present in the top left of this image as this is a screenshot of a single-player match while the other one is of a multiplayer one. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 13:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -- PetarM ( talk) 21:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - GamerPro64 03:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted -- Armbrust Homunculus 09:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust Homunculus 09:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)



Lietava Castle

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2018 at 13:29:37 (UTC)

Original Lietava Castle from Lietavská Svinná. The Lietava Castle is an extensive castle ruin in the Súľov Mountains of northern Slovakia, between the villages of Lietava and Lietavská Svinná-Babkov in the Žilina District.
Reason
High quality, high EV, good panoramic picture
Articles in which this image appears
Lietava Castle
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Vladimír Ruček
  • Support as nominatorTomer T ( talk) 13:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 05:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - needs to be cropped. Kaldari ( talk) 06:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Anarchyte ( work | talk) 09:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – Agree with Kaldari that it should be croped (mainly from left, a little on right) to focus more clearly on the structure. Plenty of pixels for that. (It can still be off-center, tho.) Sca ( talk) 15:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - No need to crop. IMO, it's nice to have some of the surroundings, actually it improves EV. -- Janke | Talk 08:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Agree. Siting was a key consideration in the construction of castles, and as such the non-architectural aspects of the image are valuable.  —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 00:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
      • You could chop off at least 25% of the left side and it would still illustrate the surroundings well. Kaldari ( talk) 05:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment As currently cropped does not illustrate article well. Charlesjsharp ( talk)
  • Support And 5...-- LivioAndronico ( talk) 20:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Promoted File:Lietavský hrad-východná strana.jpg -- Armbrust Homunculus 15:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


Academy of Athens

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2018 at 13:35:39 (UTC)

Original – The main building of the Academy of Athens, one of Theophil Hansen's "Trilogy" in central Athens. The Academy of Athens is Greece's national academy, and the highest research establishment in the country.
Reason
Very high quality, high resolution, good EV
Articles in which this image appears
Academy of Athens (modern)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Der Wolf im Wald
  • Support as nominatorTomer T ( talk) 13:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 05:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Charlesjsharp ( talk) 09:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Very nice. Mattximus ( talk) 15:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – not that it matters, but at full size the distortion on the column mounted statue heads is a bit distracting. Bammesk ( talk) 20:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -- LivioAndronico ( talk) 20:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -- PetarM ( talk) 21:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Promoted File:Akademie von Athen.jpg -- Armbrust Homunculus 15:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)



Elena Runggaldier

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2018 at 05:51:19 (UTC)

OriginalElena Runggaldier (b. 1990) is an Italian ski jumper and Nordic combined skier, who represents G.S. Fiamme Gialle. She received silver in the FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 2011.
Reason
High quality image with good EV
Articles in which this image appears
Elena Runggaldier
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport
Creator
Ailura
  • Support as nominator –  —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 05:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, technically quite good. Mattximus ( talk) 15:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • SupportBammesk ( talk) 20:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Technically average (soft focus) and distracting background. Charlesjsharp ( talk) 15:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -- LivioAndronico ( talk) 20:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional support if 2 smudges removed (left of sunglasses). Vibrance could be added (optional). -- PetarM ( talk) 21:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    •  Done the dust spots.  —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 01:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Thank you, please don't change the vibrance. -- Ailura ( talk) 06:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with Charles' observation about the focus being a bit soft, but at anything other than full resolution this isn't noticeable. The good composition and the fact that it shows the subject in the context of her notability more than make up for this. Nick-D ( talk) 23:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Per nom DreamSparrow Chat 11:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Promoted File:20150201 1316 Skispringen Hinzenbach Elena Runggaldier 8340.jpg -- Armbrust Homunculus 10:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)



Wainui Falls

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2018 at 14:24:00 (UTC)

Reason
High quality, and a good photo for the new article at Wainui Falls (EV), I think that the framing is pretty good too.
Articles in which this image appears
Wainui Falls
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures#Places
Creator
Insertcleverphrasehere
  • Support as nominator – — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 14:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - sorry, no chance here, way too contrasty, highlights are totally blown. -- Janke | Talk 15:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose sorry,for above -- LivioAndronico ( talk) 20:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok I hear you guys. Not sure how to withdraw a nomination over here as this is my first submission, but I can see which way the wind is blowing here. Thanks for your input and this can be withdrawn/closed so as to waste as little editor time as possible. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 20:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth I attempted to recover the highlights but they're completely blown out, so it isn't possible. Sorry. nagual design 05:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
nagualdesign It was a very sunny day, so I should have underexposed it, oh well, live and learn I guess. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 05:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
It's awkward with water because reducing the shutter speed or aperture necessarily affects the quality of the image. Not being able to see the screen easily in full sun doesn't help either. I always take bracketed shots then see what I've got when I get home. It's great that these smartphone cameras can take photos at ISO 32 (my Canon only goes down to ISO 100) but I don't suppose it will go any lower. The solution is to use a link nagual design 06:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Wainui Falls Tyree Collection 1.jpg
this photograph which is of the Wainui River along the track up to Wainui Falls (although there probably wasn't a track in those days), it isn't as over exposed. Both of these photos are currently added to the Wainui Falls article and give valuable historical context, so they have EV. What do you think? — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 01:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I know more about photography than I do about the ins and outs of Featured Picture candidates, but perhaps someone else can answer your questions. nagual design 01:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • From the low-res version on Commons, there looks to be some detail in there. Might be worth it. Can't guarantee it, though. —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 09:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted -- feminist ( talk) 13:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Withdrawn by nominator. feminist ( talk) 13:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)



Khuha Kharuehat Pavilion

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2018 at 00:27:30 (UTC)

Original – Khuha Kharuehat Pavilion in Phraya Nakhon Cave, Khao Sam Roi Yot National Park
Reason
Compellingly shows the sun shining on the pavilion within its cave setting. Featured on Commons, 2nd place winner WLM 2017
Articles in which this image appears
Khao Sam Roi Yot National Park
FP category for this image
Probably Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others?
Creator
Janepop Atirattanachai (BerryJ/ User:Jane3030 on Commons)
  • Support as nominatorPaul_012 ( talk) 00:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - If I'd ever learned to whistle, I'd do so.  —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 09:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support stunning image. Charlesjsharp ( talk) 09:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Fantastic photograph. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 12:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Wow. (Suggest increase in size of pic. at Khao Sam Roi Yot National Park.)Sca ( talk) 14:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – there are bright spots along the edge of the ceiling, for example at x,y=5525,1360 (relative to top left corner), perhaps stitching error of bracketed images? Also a fuzzy patch at x,y=3430,4020. I think the image can use a touch up. Bammesk ( talk) 19:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Wow (too) -- LivioAndronico ( talk) 19:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • SupportDreamSparrow Chat 11:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Promoted File:01-พระที่นั่งคูหาคฤหาสน์.jpg -- Armbrust Homunculus 00:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)



Midas blenny

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 13:18:59 (UTC)

Original – Closeup of a Midas blenny in a coral near the Andaman Islands, India.
Reason
High quality, good EV, good underwater photo
Articles in which this image appears
Midas blenny
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
Creator
Jason Marks
  • Support as nominatorTomer T ( talk) 13:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Question After Googling this, I just ask if the colours are true? Looks over-saturated, but I know depth affects underwater images so I don't know whether that's the right explanation. 15:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC) Charlesjsharp ( talk)
    Looks like a mix of the effects of underwater color balance combined with Nikon's preferred colour balance which tends to be a bit more saturated than canon and sony. ©Geni ( talk) 16:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • SupportBammesk ( talk) 19:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted -- Armbrust Homunculus 14:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust Homunculus 14:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)



Male sable antelope

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 15:21:40 (UTC)

OriginalSable antelope (Hippotragus niger). Adult male in the Tswalu Kalahari Reserve, South Africa
Reason
High quality image that illustrates article well. Current FP candidate on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Sable antelope
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator
Charlesjsharp
  • Support as nominatorCharlesjsharp ( talk) 15:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – how about cropping out the left ~200px, it looks right-heavy IMO. Bammesk ( talk) 19:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Not for me. Image is perfect rule of thirds! Charlesjsharp ( talk) 20:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – EV and good posture. Bammesk ( talk) 04:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted -- Armbrust Homunculus 21:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust Homunculus 21:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)



Indian roller

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 15:30:10 (UTC)

Original – Indian roller (Coracias benghalensis benghalensis in Kanha National Park, Madhya Pradesh, India.jpg
Reason
High quality image. Illustrates article well. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Indian roller
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
Charlesjsharp
  • Support as nominatorCharlesjsharp ( talk) 15:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • SupportBammesk ( talk) 19:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Well executed technically, and a very good depiction of this species. Nick-D ( talk) 23:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Anarchyte ( work | talk) 11:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • SupportDreamSparrow Chat 11:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Good one. -- PetarM ( talk) 15:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Promoted File:Indian roller (Coracias benghalensis benghalensis).jpg -- Armbrust Homunculus 21:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)



Portrait of the princess sissi in venice

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2018 at 19:13:46 (UTC)

Original – Portrait of the princess sissi in venice
Reason
is a important Portrait in Venice
Articles in which this image appears
Empress Elisabeth of Austria
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
LivioAndronico
  • Support as nominator LivioAndronico ( talk) 19:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – the glare on the upper part of the canvas is distracting. It look like it can be removed with better lighting. Bammesk ( talk) 04:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I like the original upload better!, I think it is more natural. Just my opinion. On a positive note: good EV and very good addition to the encyclopedia. Bammesk ( talk) 03:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted -- Armbrust Homunculus 13:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)



Kifli in Serbian cuisine

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2018 at 08:24:34 (UTC)

Original – Kifli ( Serbian cuisine)
Reason
good shot of Kifli
Articles in which this image appears
Kifli
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Creator
Petar Milošević
  • Support as nominatorPetarM ( talk) 08:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose No disrespect, but they don't look too appetizing, compared with the other photos in the article. -- Janke | Talk 12:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    Janke This is what healty food look like. In description you could read "Kifli made with spelt flour". So not wheat flour, and they taste very good. One might think they are overburnt, but they arent. Brown looking due to flour and eggs. -- PetarM ( talk) 15:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    Just to clarify; it's not the color, it's the irregular and all different shapes that kills the photo for me. Health food can look good, too! ;-) -- Janke | Talk 14:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support For me is fine...-- LivioAndronico ( talk) 18:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks tasty enough to me.  —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 05:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, per my !vote at Commons. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support although probably better with a cleaner background. ©Geni ( talk) 18:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Promoted File:Kifli made with spelt flour (Serbian cuisine).jpg -- Armbrust Homunculus 12:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)



View over Gstaad

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2018 at 16:50:58 (UTC)

Original – View over Gstaad
Reason
Simply a beautiful view over Gstaad.
Articles in which this image appears
Gstaad
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
Creator
GstaadTourismus
  • Support as nominatorTbvdm ( talk) 16:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nice photo, but size is borderline minimum requirement. Also, creator name may suggest a commercial uploader? -- Janke | Talk 17:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Less than ordinary and doesn't show village at all well. Charlesjsharp ( talk) 17:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to size. feminist ( talk) 13:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Reasonable technical quality, but composition seems rather haphazard, as if someone looked out from the balcony of his chalet and snapped a quick one. Sca ( talk) 16:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
⇒ Besides which, it's a promotional shot from the G$taad Tourism Office. – Sca ( talk) 15:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yeah, it sort of looked like a promotional image to me. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted -- Armbrust Homunculus 17:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)



Crocus tommasinianus

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2018 at 18:38:53 (UTC)

Original – Flowering Woodland crocus (Crocus tommasinianus‎) in the garden reserve Jonkervallei, Joure, Netherlands.
Reason
High quality, very illustrative of the flower.
Articles in which this image appears
Crocus tommasinianus or at Crocus.
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
Creator
-- Famberhorst ( talk) 18:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Right. The image should be in at least C. tommasinianus before nomination. The English Wikipedia requires that images be used on the English Wikipedia before they can be given featured picture status.  —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 23:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done. English Wikipedia added. Thanks for your reviews.-- Famberhorst ( talk) 17:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support  —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 02:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support  —  -- Janke | Talk 08:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – Wondering a bit about saturation. Sca ( talk) 15:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Based on the Commons category, the depth of the flowers' color seems to vary somewhat between specimens and lighting. The photographer would be best to ask about how they looked in person, but from browsing the category the saturation appears reasonable.  —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 15:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Answer The color is okay. It was clear and sunny weather. The flowers are illuminated by the sun.-- Famberhorst ( talk) 18:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Please caption the image. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Unfortunately, the image has now been removed by other editors from both the articles it was added to; so I think this nomination needs to be at least paused. I think it's a good and valuable image, but perhaps the nominator needs to look a bit further into how images are used on Wikipedia - in particular, I think adding it to articles with the caption "Beautiful flowers of Crocus tommasinianus" has inclined other editors to remove it, as image captions on Wikipedia should to be neutral and descriptive and avoid puffery. Reading through WP:IUP and WP:CAPTION may be helpful in suggesting how to add images to articles in a way that makes clear their encyclopedic value. TSP ( talk) 20:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted -- Armbrust Homunculus 18:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)



Saguaro Sunset

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2018 at 00:52:44 (UTC)

Original – Image of a silhouetted saguaro cactus in Saguaro National Park at sunset
Reason
It meets all the criteria (very high res, nice composition, free, etc)
Articles in which this image appears
Saguaro National Park, Tucson, Arizona
FP category for this image
Places
Creator
Tucsonre
  • Support as nominator Kees08 (Talk) 00:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Beautiful photo (a bit grainy and unsharp. though), but where's the EV? -- Janke | Talk 08:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, CA and noise. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose noise and no EV Charlesjsharp ( talk) 17:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted -- Armbrust Homunculus 04:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)



Treaty of Waitangi

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2018 at 02:51:14 (UTC)

Original – The group of nine documents that make up the Treaty of Waitangi
Reason
Very high resolution copy of the 9 documents that make up the Treaty of Waitangi, high EV. This image contains all nine signed sheets of the Treaty. In the previous FPC for the Waitangi Sheet (only one of the 9 sheets of the Treaty), there were a couple of requests in the that discussion for someone to upload all the sheets as a single image.
Articles in which this image appears
Treaty of Waitangi
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/Others
Creator
Archives New Zealand, with modifications by Insertcleverphrasehere
  • Support as nominator – — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 02:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Would probably be better if the backing for the damaged treaties were removed, leaving only the treaties themselves.  —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 05:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
That is the backing paper for the treaties. Which is part of them now. I already removed the backgrounds. Easy enough to to remove them though. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 07:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Removed. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)
  • Also, is that second treaty really slanted like that IRL?  —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 05:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 07:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm afraid I don't see the value in arranging all these documents in a single image. I'd suggest the pages should be in individual files nominated as a featured image set; which is certainly something we've promoted before (e.g. Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/ButterflyScaleMicroscopy) though I can't actually see in mentioned the rules. (I'd also agree with Chris about removal of the backing paper - I see the argument that the backing paper is part of the current state of the treaties, but I don't think it has historical significance to make up for it distracting from the primary subject.) TSP ( talk) 14:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I removed the backing paper, might take the cache a while to catch up though.— Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 19:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The value in arranging all these documents together is that, in context, they are not separate documents. Together these 9 documents are the Treaty. Each document by itself is not the treaty, though each contains the treaty text, there are just different sheets because they were all sent around the country separately (no email in the 19th century). While I agree that all the copies could be uploaded as a featured set, the Treaty as one image is actually more important from an encyclopedic value standpoint than any individual sheet by itself. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 20:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Assuming the relative sizes of the documents are accurately represented, this is a case where I think a composite image is superior as a featured set won't allow the reader to easily grasp the differences. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 04:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Paul 012. The relative sizes are accurate. I based the relative sizes off of the lower resolution here), just to check and make sure that the National Archives composite was also accurate. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 04:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The documents can be read, and having them all together on the one image has strong EV - especially in light of the differences between the versions. I saw these documents on display at Wellington, and viewing them together has a lot of punch. Nick-D ( talk) 04:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think the white background makes the image seem rather washed out. Wonder if a dark background would look better? (Not sure though if the backing paper should be included in that case.) Also, is there a more meaningful order by which the treaties could be arranged other than by size, that would still allow for an aesthetically balanced image? -- Paul_012 ( talk) 03:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I just went and looked at the high quality copies made of the treaties that are on display at Archives NZ's ebook on the treaty does not list numbers, and the listed order in the ebook doesn't even match the numbers they chose for listing them for download. In short, aside from the Waitangi Sheet on the left, the others should probably just be placed in an aesthetically pleasing manner (I chose to maximise space).
As an additional note, I forgot to transclude this discussion for two days after creating it, so it would be nice to keep it open an extra couple days to see if it gets enough support. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 03:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Request for guidance: I've addressed lots of concerns by many of the editors above, but nobody seems keen to support. Not sure how to proceed as it seems that all the comments and changes to the image have derailed this proposal. I am willing to do whatever is necessary to improve the quality of the image, such as darken the background to some shade of grey or something? It seems silly that this should not be considered a featured image in some form. Would it be better with a slightly darker background colour? Would it be better if I moved the sheets slightly closer together? Should I just give up and upload all of the other sheets as independent images and nominate them as a featured set (or is this composite part of the featured set)? Just looking for some guidance here as I am willing and able but do not know what I have to do to improve the image to get it to meet FP criteria and I feel like I am running out of time. What is the policy on 're-noninations' if I work to address some of the issues? Pinging previous commenters. Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 03:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted -- Armbrust Homunculus 05:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Other Languages