Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/November-2020

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.

Pauline Gracia Beery Mack[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 05:46:52 (UTC)

Reason: The image is high-quality. Would have rather had better dating of it, Mr. Smithsonian Institution Who Should Know Better, but we can narrow it down enough that it's not excessive. Edit: About 19421. I found a very similar photograph published in an industry journal in February 1942, and Penny Richards traced it to a newspaper in 1941, so... She started her career off as a professor teaching Chemistry to Home Economics students - and showed just how much you can do with that kind of thing, because she was really good at research on nutrition and such, and it eventually lead to her working for NASA in helping astronauts maintain bone density.
Articles in which this image appears: Pauline Gracia Beery Mack
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
Creator: Underwood & Underwood, restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 05:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as article creator (six years ago!) – It's not-so-common for academic women of her generation to have a high-quality portrait, so this is wonderful to highlight; and the NASA connection is definitely a bonus. Penny Richards (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 12:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pauline Gracia Beery Mack (1891-1974) (5493947511) - Restoration.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Centennial Hall[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 09:24:51 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality and EV
Articles in which this image appears: Centennial Hall
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Jar.ciurus

Support as nominator – Andrei (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Once again, in the interest of historical transparency, the nom. caption should include the fact that, before 1945, the city was the German Breslau, and that Centennial Hall was built in 1912-1913 as the Jahrhunderthalle. – Sca (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jahrhunderthalle is translated as Centennial Hall. It would be a tautology. Fixed the rest. --Andrei (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point of mentioning Jahrhunderthalle is that the original name of the building was in German. Dziękuję.– Sca (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 21:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good high quality image of a notable building TSP (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Wroclaw - Hala Stulecia 03.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Johnson[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 21:17:00 (UTC)

Reason: Quite a nice image, immaculately preserved - I added this to my queue, then took it off because I couldn't find a speck. Lead image of the article on her.
Articles in which this image appears: Katherine Johnson + 4 or so
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
Creator: NASA

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 21:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – we have a FP of her, hands on at work at: File:Katherine Johnson at NASA, in 1966.jpg thanks to you Adam. Why have a second one? Bammesk (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- They show different things and have different purposes. Why encourage mediocrity in the Second image? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 01:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Support, there is enough of a difference in the depictions, and the EV and the historic subject matter helps as well in this case. Bammesk (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Seems to check all the boxes. Love those glasses! Kaldari (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - DreamSparrow ^Chat 16:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It almost seems like she's ready to say something, love that expression and gaze. Shearonink (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Katherine Johnson 1983.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Jackson[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 22:28:47 (UTC)

Reason: While not the lead image, it helps illustrate the variety of work she did. She was NASA's first black female engineer, after all. She worked in wind tunnels.
Articles in which this image appears: Mary Jackson (engineer)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
Creator: NASA, restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 22:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – thanks to you Adam, we have a FP of her here, why have a second FP? Bammesk (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? I think that, if we only accept one photo per subject, we end up with our good illustrations being lost in a sea of mediocre ones also in the articles. Better to accept multiple images that are each distinct than encourage a philosophy of all the other photos in an article being poor-quality. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 01:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bammesk That's the same image that's nominated here. Did you mean another image? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant this image, I fixed the link. Thanks. Bammesk (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not loving the composition on this one. The lights at the top are especially distracting. I think a much tighter crop would be an improvement. Kaldari (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Quite cluttered snapshot. – Sca (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sca and Kaldari: I think that's inevitable for this image's EV. We could crop a bit, but a lot of the busy-ness is giving information about the wind tunnel, and if you crop out the wind tunnel, you're just left with an image redundant to and a bit worse than the lead one. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 19:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, it may just not be suitable as an FP. Kaldari (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree it is a poor composition. EV but not FP. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support high EV, in my opinion, outweighs aesthetic considerations. (t · c) buidhe 00:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanette Scissum[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2020 at 07:13:41 (UTC)

Reason: So, uh... I have insomnia. And you can probably guess from my recent activity here what I do when I have insomnia. But I will say this is a pretty strong image, I love "People at work images", and I just spent about... four, four and a half hours cleaning this one up. Think some of the marks look like scuffs, so I left those in.
Oh, I should probably point out the curves adjustment. I'm rather proud of that: Was able to recover a fair bit of detail in the bright whites, which is always nice. I'd imagine this was shot a bit on the over-exposed side as, well, frankly, film stock was calibrated for white people - but at least the photographer making the effort to work around them means that she is well-photgraphed.
Oh, and for the record, this is the poster: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/mapcatalog/LEM/ - the apparent smear on the left of the moon is definitely a real lunar feature.
Articles in which this image appears: Jeanette Scissum
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
Creator: NASA/MSFC; restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 07:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite the perspective distortion. MER-C 09:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Jeanette Scissum at Marshall Space Flight Center.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harpoons[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 18:07:16 (UTC)

Reason: Highly encyclopedic depiction of Inuit harpoons
Articles in which this image appears: Harpoon, Inuit cuisine
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others
Creator: Didier Descouens

Support as nominator – MER-C 18:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I can vote but this object is a good memory for me who had the opportunity to hold it in my hand. It is a common object that surprised me with the finesse of the work and the intelligence of the amalgamation of heterogeneous materials. In this object there is no unnecessary detail. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeodontosaurus, you can vote, image creators often vote on their own images. Bammesk (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Archaeodontosaurus, I think this other image of yours has a good chance of passing an FP nom if the crop wasn't so tight. How about adding say for example 100 pixels of black area to each side? Bammesk (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you it seems to me that there are only gentlemen here ...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

who could possibly argue with a man with a harpoon, Didier. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support but with suggestion : Somehow divide the image (with white horizontal line?) so that it is immediately apparent that it's the same harpoon twice, not two harpoons. --Janke | Talk 11:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Janke: I added this argument in the caption title. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This image is very disorienting to me. It seems to be two harpoons floating in space with shadows going in different directions. And if they are both the same harpoon, how are they sharing the same background? It makes my head spin trying to figure out what I'm actually looking at. Kaldari (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Harpon Unaaq MHNT ETH AC 198.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Domergue's leaf chameleon[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 17:01:17 (UTC)

Reason: High quality large image. FP on Commons. Illustrates article well.
Articles in which this image appears: Brookesia thieli
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Creator: Charlesjsharp

Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 17:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC) . . . I see some banding above and to the left of the head, but not a big deal.[reply]

There is is some which was noted at Commons. I tried removing them, but the final result was too 'smooth'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could have a go if you want, but it seems unnecessary. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 15:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but as you say, probably not worth the effort. It was a poor light shot and when you bring up shadows even in RAW, a few artefacts can appear on conversion. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 15:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steppe buzzard[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 17:05:43 (UTC)

Reason: High quality large image. FP on Commons. Adds value to article.
Articles in which this image appears: Common buzzard
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: Charlesjsharp

Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 18:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 15:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ButterfliesAreAmazinglyBeautiful (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New user? Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This user doesn't has the necessary number of edits (100) or tenure (25 days) to cast a vote, so I struck it. Thanks, Charlesjsharp, for pointing it out. Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Best image available, I'm just wondering should we have Buteo buteo buteo as the main picture. —kallerna 14:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're not that different and there are a couple of morphs of the common buzzard anyway. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Steppe buzzard (Buteo buteo vulpinus).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DeFord Bailey (improved)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2020 at 02:06:15 (UTC)

Reason: This is a unique image of a historic figure in the latter years of his life. DeFord Bailey was the first performer to appear on The Grand Old Opry radio show and is only one of two African-American inductees in the Country Music Hall of Fame. His photo clearly fulfills the following FP parameters: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. I understand that 1, 2, & 3 are more concerned with the technical aspects and perhaps this image might not be thought of as fulfilling these criteria, but it is possible that this photo fulfills 1, 2, & 3. It is a singular photo of a unique African-American man in American musical history. Mr Bailey is deceased and it is the only photo of Mr. Bailey available on Commons. Yes, I agree the technical aspects of criteria 1 & 2 are important but I think the historical aspects of this photo should be taken into consideration as well.
Articles in which this image appears: DeFord Bailey, List of Country Music Hall of Fame inductees
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator: Marilyn K. Morton, uploaded by Shearonink, cleanup by Hohum

Support as nominator – Shearonink (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is it not possible to reduce the noise ? DreamSparrow ^Chat 17:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The cleanup couldn't bring back the details lost in the original scan due to overly high contrast (lost detail in highlights and shadows, ~~probably~~ due to scanning from a photographic print (confirmed, looking at original scan), not an original negative/slide). For this reason, my original oppose stands. --Janke | Talk 17:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Independent of other issues, I'm not sure about the restoration. Comparing to the original, the image now seems significantly noisier (looking particularly at his hat) and to have lost detail in places (looking particularly at his tie). I don't know if this is through the actual filters applied, or repeated saving? The biggest difference seems to be in the last two edits. TSP (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The film grain is slightly more noticeable in the brighter areas now, instead of being blown out. Chroma noise and posterization are reduced though. (Hohum ^@) 20:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kanayi Kunhiraman[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2020 at 12:52:18 (UTC)

Reason: Very good quality and high EV.
Articles in which this image appears: Kanayi Kunhiraman, Raja Ravi Varma Puraskaram
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers
Creator: Mullookkaaran

Support as nominator – DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive portrait. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agreed.. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 15:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very eye-catching, good encyclopedic value. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 19:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Kanayi Kunhiraman Image.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Kirby[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2020 at 17:37:16 (UTC)

Reason: She's one of those people who have a complicated career, so it's a little hard to summarise, but, suffice to say, a notable Army nurse who was one of the first two nurses to be given the rank of Colonel, and set up neuropsychiatric hospitals in the South West Pacific Area during WWII as Assistant Director of Nursing, amongst other things.
Articles in which this image appears: Pauline Kirby
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military, I'd say.
Creator: United States Army, restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 17:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support (t · c) buidhe 19:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 19:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pauline Kirby (5493900611).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakia[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2020 at 12:31:07 (UTC)

Reason: Beautiful picture. Slovakia isn't a well known country, so this might get readers interested in it.
Articles in which this image appears: Slovakia
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: Szeder László

Support as nominator – ButterfliesAreAmazinglyBeautiful (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Eligible for nom Armbrust ? DreamSparrow ^Chat 17:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - just a snapshot; distracting composition with leaves at top, strong chromatic aberration. --Janke | Talk 18:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While Slovakia is a beautiful country, there are better pictures of it on Commons. You are more likely to show encyclopedic value for a narrower topic. And as Janke said, the chromatic aberration reduces the quality of the image. (t · c) buidhe 19:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barn Owl[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2020 at 13:50:13 (UTC)

Reason: Beautiful image of a Barn Owl in flight.
Articles in which this image appears: Barn_owl
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: Peter K Burian

Support as nominator – ButterfliesAreAmazinglyBeautiful (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - not sure what the rules are for nominating an image if you are new here. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding is you can always nominate. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 01:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: My impression is this is a strong photo, but the barn owl is a relatively small number of the pixels. What's your thoughts on the difficulty? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 01:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would love to take a shot like this but it is too small and noisy for FP. With only a 300mm lens, too much has had to be cropped. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a larger image of this existed, though, I'd be happy to support it. A pity, but the owl is such a small part of a fairly low-res photo. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 07:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleva Church[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2020 at 09:28:58 (UTC)

Reason: high EV, good quality, architecturally interesting
Articles in which this image appears: Kaleva Church, Kaleva (Tampere), Reima and Raili Pietilä, Tampere
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: kallerna

Support as nominator —kallerna 09:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Any word on what country this is in? – Sca (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's in Tampere, Finland -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a great image of a very interesting building by a notable architect couple. It may not be immediately obvious that it's a church (known locally as the 'soul silo'!), but it's basically a re-imagining of the cathedral, and especially the interior is gorgeous. And yes, I realise none of that has anything to do with the FP nom, but thought I'd mention it anyway. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We really need an interior photo in the article... --Janke | Talk 14:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Janke: There are a few in the commons folder, although they don't (can't, really) quite convey the sense of space. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gets my (perchance a bit too provincial) support ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 19:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Stub article. Composition not helped by the people. ~~Slightly tilted. Not sure what the white blobs in the grass are. Birds?~~ Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Charles. And vertical perspective seems slightly distorted. – Sca (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fixed the perspective and tilt. White blobs are weeds and birds, I cloned one bird out. —kallerna 14:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, can you add more referenced content to the article, please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The finnish article is quite extensive, I could translate some content from there. I’m quite busy during the weekend but we’ll see. —kallerna 11:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added some content. Not worse than most articles in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture. —kallerna 11:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support under the assumption the article will at least be a bit bigger before it's considered for main page. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 09:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question I don't think we should make this sort of assumption. BUT, I've read through the FP criteria and I cannot find any guideline that excludes stub articles. I have assumed, because my images in stub articles have been rejected, that article size is a criteria. Opinions anyone? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"because my images in stub articles have been rejected", could you give us some examples please (where article size was the reason for rejection), so that we are all on the same page? Bammesk (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that it's not a requirement, but if notability isn't established, that can sink a nom, obviously. More relevant to Charles' question is that a failure to have a reasonably long article will block POTD, and some people will vote accordingly. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 18:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my take, I go by one or two paragraphs, not one or two sentences. For a notable subject, it shouldn't be much effort to have one or two paragraphs. Criterion 5 says "Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article". If an article, for all practical purposes, is not written, then the image can't add significant EV to what is not-there-to-be-understood. Bammesk (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one example where, in my opinion, having a male and female in a short article is good EV: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Blue-legged chameleon female. "one or two paragraphs, not one or two sentences" may make sense, but we should have a policy. Taking an extreme example I have not nominated File:Hemiolaus cobaltina.jpg, How can readers understand the 1/2 line article without this picture? Suitability for POTD is not mentioned in FP Criteria: perhaps it should be. I am NOT pushing for stub articles to have FPs, I just want a sound policy. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "How can readers understand the 1/2 line article [1] without this picture?": There isn't anything to understand, because the article isn't written. The 1/2 line is a placeholder, it isn't an article. Bammesk (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info Charlesjsharp, Sca: Both the article and the image have been improved. —kallerna 09:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - good picture of a notable building. Also I am delighted to discover that the architect's older sister was the partner of the author who created the Moomins. TSP (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Kaleva Church 4.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Granville Stuart[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2020 at 07:04:57 (UTC)

Reason: A fine photo of the sort of person who's easily neglected outwith his state.
Articles in which this image appears: Granville Stuart
FP category for this image: Either Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Artists_and_writers or Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Business, closer's choice
Creator: L. A. Huffman, restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 07:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 18:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 10:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Granville Stuart 1883 by L. A. Huffman.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Sebastian[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2020 at 23:14:11 (UTC)

Reason: Found this while prepping the Signpost Featured content page for this month. A rather impressive and dynamic image of the artist's show. Certainly a bit out of the ordinary. Manages to look good despite difficult conditions - black clothing in darkness. Might challenge your monitor's black depth, mind, so I'm open to doing a levels tweak at the bottom. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 23:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Articles in which this image appears: Joan Sebastian, and numerous pages related to awards Sebastian won
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator: Julio Enriquez

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 23:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I am leaning to oppose, he isn't sharp, I think the focus is on the back half of the horse, not the mid-section where he is, or the front. Or there is excessive motion blur. Bammesk (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not the best judge of modern pics, but I saw that as necessary consequences of a difficult to shoot photo. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 05:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and foot cropped off. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Rider is indeed out of focus at full res., and his black costume bleeds into the nighttime BG. – Sca (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Thanks for considering this, I'll take the lessons in mind next time I look at modern photos. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 17:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarf hawkfish[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2020 at 18:17:20 (UTC)

Reason: Currently doing very well on Commons FPC.
Articles in which this image appears: Dwarf hawkfish
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
Creator: q phia

Support as nominator – MER-C 18:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little noisy, but I can accept that in an underwater pic. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 23:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - DreamSparrow ^Chat 02:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clara McAdow[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2020 at 03:14:33 (UTC)

Reason: A fascinating woman - one of the most successful mine owners in Montana, a genius at business, and I've heard her declared a modern woman in the Victorian era. It's a nice photo, did need a bit of work - lots of damage. Also, is it just me, or is "square" as an image option way larger than any of the other image layout types?
Articles in which this image appears: Clara McAdow
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Business
Creator: Unknown photographer; restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 03:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 19:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - DreamSparrow ^Chat 02:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, ~~oppose~~ featurement of "restored" images. If they are of enough value to feature, then let's have them unfiddled around with. 2A00:23C8:7B08:6A00:A1B5:9D8F:29CE:2A8 (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck vote as unregistered users are not allowed to do that here. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Clara McAdow.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Fredman[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2020 at 03:52:02 (UTC)

Reason: Quality lead image, well done photo of a notable professor active in human rights law. Looks like a pro shot, captured with a pro camera.
Articles in which this image appears: Sandra Fredman
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
Creator: David Fisher

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little more depth of field would've been nice, but it's sharp where it needs to be. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 03:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not so good chosen DOF. --Petar Milošević (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Adam - DreamSparrow ^Chat 02:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pro photographer, but poor dof e.g. necklace. Crop. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Interesting face but poor comp., subpar DOF. – Sca (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – "Among Wikipedia's best"? – Nah. --Janke | Talk 21:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is too much "blurred window" background, which is distracting in a non-interesting way. Perhaps it could be cropped more tightly. 2A00:23C8:7B08:6A00:A1B5:9D8F:29CE:2A8 (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents about the DOF and crop: I see both as artistic effects (or choices). This is a portrait of a person, the focal point is her face and it's sharp where it should be. Reviews on DOF and crop are valid subjective critiques though. On the technical side: there isn't much of a range in setting the DOF. Capturing the ambient lit background and the fill flash foreground limits the aperature/exposure time/ISO settings. A deeper DOF could introduce motion blur or noise. It would also sharpen the bokeh, which isn't the intent here. This is a well done photo technically IMO. Bammesk (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the DOF and the composition. Way too many times, portraits are boring headshots, this has a bit of character to it --Muhammad(talk) 13:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - comment - This picture shows blurred windows, but the face was clearly visible. Evan0512 (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to promote. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lorelei[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2020 at 15:30:29 (UTC)

Reason: About to be featured on Commons through a replacement nomination. High resolution panorama.
Articles in which this image appears: Lorelei, Urbar, Rhein-Hunsrück
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
Creator: Jörg Braukmann

Support as nominator – MER-C 15:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per Commons annotations the photo also shows Sankt Goarshausen, Katz Castle and Maus Castle. Bammesk (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – A bit oversharpened, IMO. Interestingly, this perspective "squashes" the high rock into the landscape, so you don't see it as in the other pctures in the article. --Janke | Talk 10:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only featured in the unnecessary gallery in the article. Slightly overprocessed (sharpening, shadows/highlights), but my main concern is the composition: the viewpoint is not ideal, too much foreground. If the main subject is the town, why so wide panorama? Would be better if 30-40 % of the photo would be cropped from the right. I would love to see a drone shot in the evening sun. —kallerna 13:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty sure the main subject is the Lorelei rock in the middle, not the town. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Loreley is primarily the rock in the center of the image. It forms a dangerous bottleneck in the Rhine. The panorama authentically reproduces the view from the "Maria Ruh" lookout point. --Milseburg (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (listed under FPCs needing feedback) I do not feel comfortable supporting or opposing this picture. It is a great shot, but I have a hard time seeing the significant encyclopedic value of it. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aeshna affinis[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2020 at 15:55:37 (UTC)

Reason: Was seen on Commons FPC last month, where it was featured unanimously. Well executed focus stack that shows an aspect of the subject the infobox images don't.
Articles in which this image appears: Aeshna affinis
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator: Sven Damerow

Support as nominator – MER-C 15:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – even though there is some strange blur on the top right wing tip (a stacking error?) --Janke | Talk 10:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 15:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support though has anyone told Sven about the error Janke spotted? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 18:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would be good if just spot Janke saw would be problem. I added on photo much more biger issues. Around head etc. Also, Color space is not RGB but Uncalibrated. Adobe PS cant solve this, even Helicon can't. Some spaces always need manual correction. Depth card is OK, those parts are not missing, so photographer could add them. I need something like 5-6 h of work for such photo. This one was shot in morning and uploaded afternoon. I do that more like in few days than hours. Bammesk usualy have sharp eye ;). Botom could have some place more, tight crop. --Petar Milošević (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC) p.S. MER-C mistakes are too big[reply]

Promoted File:Südliche Mosaikjungfer - Aeshna affinis.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clanculus ormophorus[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2020 at 17:27:07 (UTC)

Reason: High quality detailed image of a Clanculus ormophorus sea snail. Snails are typically 0.7 inches in size (18 mm).
Articles in which this image appears: Clanculus ormophorus, Clanculus
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Molluscs
Creator: Llez

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the purple fringing. MER-C 18:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see it now. It's pronounced on the peripheries, not the middle!? perhaps it's amplified by iridescence or some physical property of the shells, rather than an optical or photographic defect. Bammesk (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it's photographic. This is a composite photo of the same shell, and I see purple fringing in all of them. Not enough that I'll oppose, though. --Janke | Talk 10:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Janke, yes it's a composite. I didn't mean the periphery of the photograph, I meant the periphery of the shell (in each profile), that's where the purple fringing is. The periphery has a steep angle with respect to the camera, but the middle portion has little to no angle. I am suggesting perhaps the steep angle brings out the unusual scattering of light, due to iridescence or some other physical property, as opposed to photographic/lens imperfections. Bammesk (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into account that the size of the shell is only 17 mm across, and probably shot with a zoom lens (at 47 mm) with extension ring(s) or with a diopter close-up lens, my bet is on chromatic aberration, not iridiscence. (BTW: I'd really like to know how that mollusk manages making those little bumps alternate light/dark on the shell... ;-) --Janke | Talk 22:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ black background. I have literally no idea why anyone would want to do that. 2A00:23C8:7B08:6A00:D97B:DB0F:5213:CF0F (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck vote as unregistered users are not allowed to do that here. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it's probably iridescence. And given the size, this is a pretty extreme zoom, so some minor imperfections are pretty acceptable. I estimate this at around a 20x zoom on my screen by a rough estimate, if the original is 17 mm, so some imperfections are natural. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 23:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Having hard crispy outlines against the black background at points of the shell where the interior outlines appear blurred and fringed by shallow dof and chromatic aberration (most noticeably at the upper right near the mouth of the shell) makes this look too fake to me, regardless of whether that is the way it was actually shot. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lyford House[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2020 at 17:47:00 (UTC)

Reason: High quality image of a notable historically significant house (listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places). Lead image, FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Benjamin and Hilarita Lyford House, National Register of Historic Places listings in Marin County, California
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others
Creator: Frank Schulenburg

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Yawn. – Sca (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The house was somewhat painted yellow. Evan0512 (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So? – Sca (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The picture is taken from an angle that makes the house seem somehow distorted, you don’t get a proper feeling of the volumes of the building. Yakikaki (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I had the same feeling, but I checked, and everything that should be vertical is. I think it's partly the effect of the mansard roof. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Good lighting and detail on an encyclopedic-enough building but at high resolution this is a bit soft for my taste. More importantly I find the cluttered background confusing. It's what's there in the scene and hard to do much around, but for instance it makes the skylight on the building look at first like a distant unrelated building on the hilltop behind it, and the same for the white trim on the left side of the roof. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems decent for 2013. My main issue is that I wish it wasn't such a tight crop. Weak support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 05:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

French battleship Suffren[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2020 at 08:57:17 (UTC)

Reason: A nice, public-domain news photograph of a notable battleship, recently brought to featured article status
Articles in which this image appears: French battleship Suffren
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Vehicles/Water
Creator: Agence Rol, restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 08:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The crop used with the article is a bit tighter, and IMO even a little more left-cropping would be advisable. – Sca (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what CSS-crop is for, though. Lets you have the full image, but crop it a little for thumbnailing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 18:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Suffren is the photo subject, and those interested in naval history might like to zero in on 'her' a bit closer. All the murky gray context isn't helpful in that regard.– Sca (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Should not crop historical photo. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It's been done here before. – Sca (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The subject of the article is the ship itself, not the Toulon harbor in 1911. – Sca (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support – the lower left border looks faded, I think it can be touched up. Bammesk (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bammesk: Should be fixed! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 06:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There's a black blotch in the hills, though. MER-C 15:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Having the full image restored and featured, in enough detail that it can be CSS cropped for the article, is a good way to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Would someone like to explain to us benighted non-fotogs what a CSS crop is? (I was a news fotog of sorts in an earlier lifetime.)
– Sca (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sca: Oh, {{CSS image crop}}. It's a way of cropping things on Wikipedia for articles without cropping the original image. It has the advantage that it directs people interested in the image to the uncropped one, which they can then crop however they like for reuse. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs}

Okay, thanks Adam. – Sca (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)01:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Agence Rol - 23-10-11, Toulon, cuirassé Suffren.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salepçioğlu Mosque[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2020 at 03:28:28 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality nad high EV. Better composition and lighting.
Articles in which this image appears: Salepçioğlu Mosque
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: A.Savin

Support as nominator – DreamSparrow ^Chat 03:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For me the foreground cars spoil this. I'd much rather this could have been shot at a time when the lot was empty. But here's a possible alternative CSS crop, which I'd be willing to support:

cropped to 3x4 aspect ratio

The article is also pretty stubby right now, so expanding it would strengthen the nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am sorry David Eppstein, I don't think I can support the crop. It spoils the image I feel. - DreamSparrow ^Chat 17:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The car park ruins the composition in the original, and the alt seems a bit off centre. Neither image is much better than snapshot quality. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is also severe distortion of the tower due to extreme wideangle (13mm full-frame). Not good for architecture, would need a restitution to be acceptable. --Janke | Talk 13:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Janke. Skewed perspective is quite obvious. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mydreamsparrow: Thanks for nomination, yet I think it's difficult to take a perfect exterior picture of the Salepçioğlu Mosque, as there is just way too few space around... But you may go for it with one of both interior views if you wish. --A.Savin (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @A.Savin: It is a beautiful image, that is why I tried nomination. DreamSparrow ^Chat 17:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lavender waxbill (Estrilda caerulescens)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2020 at 03:22:30 (UTC)

Reason: High quality and EV. Very good composition and lighting.
Articles in which this image appears: Estrilda, Estrildidae, Glaucestrilda, Lavender waxbill
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: Charlesjsharp

Support as nominator – DreamSparrow ^Chat 03:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 15:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 02:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exceptional picture with high encyclopedic value. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lavender waxbill (Estrilda caerulescens).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canary Wharf[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2020 at 19:09:39 (UTC)

Reason: Recently featured on Commons, lead image in article.
Articles in which this image appears: Canary Wharf
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
Creator: King of Hearts

Support as nominator – MER-C 19:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC
Support – Bammesk (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems sharp for a nighttime shot, and the lights do delineate things well. Give some scale. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 06:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great picture. Footlessmouse (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Canary Wharf from Limehouse London June 2016 HDR.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keke Rosberg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2020 at 07:39:15 (UTC)

Reason: It's not a standard composition, but it's full of character, and I quite like it. Not really a major restoration; a few dust spots.
Articles in which this image appears: Keke Rosberg, 1982 Formula One World Championship
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport
Creator: Hans van Dijk for Anefo, with minor restoration by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 07:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Leaning to~~ Support, provided the face is lightened up a bit... --Janke | Talk 20:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I eyed that, but it's really not that much in shadow. Everything is still perfectly clear and detailed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 10:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 20:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 20:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a really good portrait with good EV as it shows the subject during a race. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Anefo 932-2378 Keke Rosberg, Zandvoort, 03-07-1982 - Restoration.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emmy Noether[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 May 2020 at 22:13:19 (UTC)

**Original** – Mathematician Emmy Noether, early 1900s

Reason: Emmy Noether, one of the top mathematicians of 20th century, contributed to abstract algebra and theoretical physics. Several contributions are named after her, including Noether's theorem which is the mathematical framework of conservation of energy. Following her death, Einstein wrote a letter in the New York Times (May 5, 1935) in recognition of her contributions [2]. The image is shy of the 1500 pixel count, but I think this qualifies for an exception. The image is historic, has high EV and good composition. The original is 1450×2085 pixels, I uploaded it for reference. The white periphery had always been cropped, because it fits the articles better that way, so after doing some minor touchups I cropped the periphery to what it was.
Articles in which this image appears: Emmy Noether, List of things named after Emmy Noether, Conservation of energy, Women in science, List of female scientists in the 20th century + others
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
Creator: Mathematical Association of America (MAA)

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom really: this is a high quality photo, and looks great in the infobox. Nick-D (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 10:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The iconic image of a top mathematician of any century, not just the 20th. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True. David, it would be nice if you wrote her main page blurb. Cheers. Bammesk (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support | DreamSparrow ^Chat 16:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lemonreader (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The image lacks a tag explaining why it is PD in the US. This should be provided, with evidence. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the tags, but can't find a source for its publication pre 1925. Bammesk (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you so sure it was published pre 1925? Josh Milburn (talk) 06:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until the copyright situation is cleared up. We really can't be promoting images that only might be public domain. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a source so I am not sure it was published pre 1925. Here is what I found (I am not a copyright expert, so correct me if I am wrong). These two sources [3], [4] suggest copyright ownership by her family (in footnotes: Emiliana and Monica), which suggests copyright ownership by Emmy Noether herself. 1- if the image was first published pre 1925, then it is PD in U.S., 2- if the image was first published after her death in 1935, then it is PD in U.S. 70 years after her death, i.e. post 2005, 3- if the image was first published between 1925 and her death in 1935, then a copyright renewal must have been filed 28 years later, from 1952 to 1963, or else the image is in PD in U.S. I did a search for her name in the online copyright registration and renewal records from 1952 to 1963 and found reference to only one item, this book. The book was first published in 1930 (volume 1) and 1931 (volume 2) in Germany, and multiple later editions exist. Whether the book includes this photo (at the time a 20 year old photo) is unlikely, but it is verifiable. Bammesk (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The English translation of the book is available at the internet archive volume 1, volume 2 (published around 1950). I looked through them and there are no images or photographs in them. I placed an inquiry at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard diff. If there is no clearing up of the copyright, I would have no objection to withdrawing this nomination. Bammesk (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Postpone closure until this deletion request on Commons is closed. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bammesk: FYI: the image was reverted to a unrestored version. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armbrust, Ok, let's get clarity on the deletion request first, otherwise it's a moot point. Bammesk (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Armbrust:, I withdraw this nom. I will renominate if and when the copyright is cleared up. Bammesk (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Viscosities.gif[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2020 at 00:58:34 (UTC)

**Original** – Viscosity demonstration. The fluid on the left has a lower viscosity than the fluid on the right.

Reason: (nominating on behalf of Synapticrelay who has been inactive for several months) The animation meets all the criteria of a featured picture and Synapticrelay deserves our formal gratitude for creating such an outstanding illustration of the concept. It has a max resolution, as an animated image, of 1,400 × 1,080, but it was dialed back to 600 × 463 for size considerations. But animated images are allowed to be smaller. It is otherwise clear and focused and has no display issues. In my opinion, it is certainly among Wikipedia's best work. I simply cannot think of a better illustration of viscosity and it immediately explains the concept to lay-readers. It is verifiable by common knowledge or any physics or engineering textbook mentioning the topic. The caption could probably be expanded, but the quality of the animation is such that very little needs to be said about it. No digital manipulation. Again, thank you, Synapticrelay, for creating and uploading this amazing picture. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Articles in which this image appears: Viscosity
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Others
Creator: Synapticrelay

Support as nominator – Footlessmouse (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Instantly gets the concept across without need for annotation. We don't have enough featured pictures that are scientific illustrations rather than photos or historical reproductions, and I think this is a great example of its type. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. --Janke | Talk 06:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Larger version is very pixelated, but the smaller one looks good. Support, although I'd like to know what the method for making this was. Computer simulation of viscosity? If the user was more active, I'd like to hear a lot more from them. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 04:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello! I am the original creator of this image. I created this in Blender 2.79 using the built-in fluid simulation mechanics, and rendered in Cycles. I have the original files available, and would be able to create a higher-resolution/clearer image if need be. Thank you so much for the nomination! Synapticrelay (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's good as-is, since the higher resolution would also cause issues with rendering gifs. maybe a high-resolution video for those that prefer that? But that confirms the physics, so that's good. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 11:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 20:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 20:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The boundary of the orange fluid where it meets the floor jitters a lot. Can this be easily fixed? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 02:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~I believe it is inaccurate. The flow is less for the viscous flow.~~ Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp: Hi! I believe you may have misunderstood the caption: the fluid with the higher viscosity, the orange fluid on the right, flows slower than the other. Viscosity is a continuum: the viscosity of water is (in terms of dynamic viscosity at NTP) on order of 10^-3 Pa*s while the viscosity of corn syrup is on order of 10⁰ Pa*s. (Going out further, the viscosity of most glasses are of order 10¹⁸+ Pa*s) So the animation is basically just an illustration of the difference in fluid flow for two liquids with viscosities differing by about four orders of magnitude. We can reword the caption if you believe it is confusing. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I have misinterpreted your comment. I hope this helps. Footlessmouse (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine if you specify the relative viscosity Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC) (CEng FIMechE)[reply]

Promoted File:Viscosities.gif --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newar Woman[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2020 at 16:44:32 (UTC)

Reason: Quality image
Articles in which this image appears: Newar people, Newar caste system, Newar traditional clothing
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Traditional dress
Creator: Unknown; collection by Los Angeles County Museum of Art

Support as nominator – ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 16:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Used twice in article, though it does not add much value. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prithvi Bir Bikram Shah[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2020 at 20:04:18 (UTC)

Reason: Quality image
Articles in which this image appears: Prithvi Bir Bikram Shah, Queen Divyeshwari of Nepal
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty and nobility
Creator: Madan Puraskar Pustakalaya; Restoration by CAPTAIN MEDUSA

Support as nominator – ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 20:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rightly not the infobox image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesjsharp, infobox image at Queen Divyeshwari of Nepal. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 16:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's a stub article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Nice restoration. The first article is poorly sourced, the second article isn't sourced at all. I would support if the second article was well sourced (and perhaps slightly in better shape). Perhaps a renomination. Bammesk (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Everest 3D map[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2020 at 01:50:32 (UTC)

**Original** – Annotated 3D rendering of Mount Everest and surrounding terrain based on data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center and Landsat 8.

Reason: This CC0 render is high-resolution, attractive, and shows the form of the terrain better than the existing 2D maps and satellite photographs. File:Everest-3D-Map-No-Type.jpg is a version without annotation, if preferred.
Articles in which this image appears: Mount Everest, Timeline of Mount Everest expeditions, 1953 British Mount Everest expedition
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps
Creator: Tom Patterson, shadedrelief.com

Support as nominator – cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 01:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning to support, but there is a license review tag on the file page. Also can the image be positioned and sized more prominently on the article page? Bammesk (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be a problem, the author's page states: "Terms of use: The maps on this page are in the public domain. You may use them any way you like, including modifying the content, digital and print reproduction, and selling them for profit. Consider these maps as yours. --Janke | Talk 08:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Note: Can an admin or reviewer confirm the above and remove the tag? --Janke | Talk 18:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 12:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose hidden at the bottom of the article. 2D on my computer. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

;-) - but note that "3D" in the way used here is a normal way of describing a perspective view of a map... --Janke | Talk 11:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: I gather that your opposition is due to the placement of the image in the article, and the caption used. ~~If these are changed, will you support it?~~ Is it better now? Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 22:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's better now, but insufficient EV for me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks amazing. Timwi (talk)
^^Weak Oppose The image is fantastic, but the usage is terrible. It's not even used at a size that the labels can be read. On Commons, this would be a clear support, but here, where usage counts, I can't in good faith do so: This is so buried that it feels like a mere afterthought. Even in the section "Context and maps" it's an afterthought to a much larger satellite image. I can't imagine anyone clicking on it and seeing it large enough to appreciate the detail.

It's 347px wide in this nomination, and that's enough to look prety good. In article usage, though, it's 220px wide in the article, and shoved in next to a 600px image-mapped satellite image thumbnail, which is clearly the main focus of the secion. We can have more than one FP per article, but this is, at best, a Dwarf FP: Like a dwarf planet, it doesn't count as a real FP because it does not dominate its region of space. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 01:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: I didn't gather from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria that an image's prominence in the article is a factor and have thus made it more dominate the Context and maps section. Is that OK now? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 19:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the addition to Timeline of Mount Everest expeditions helps, as does the Context and mapping section revisions. It's enough to at least move to weak oppose, leaning weak support, which I believe moves this into passing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 11:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmglee: As for the criterion in question, it's not spelled out as this is kind of an unusual situation, but Criterion 5 requires an FP "Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article." - if it's buried in a sea of images, too small to make out, and other images are more obviously being used for the purpose it's meant to, it's not really adding value, or helping readers understand it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 20:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Agree, EV in current usage is not there. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: I noted on Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria "helps readers to understand an article". I can't speak for others but the 3D-ness does help me to understand the elevations and routes much better than a flat map or satellite photo. What needs to be done to increase it's EV? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 19:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I added it to two articles [5], [6]. It relates well to the descriptions given. Per Janke, copyright should be no problem. Pinging @Adam Cuerden and David Eppstein: in case they want to reassess. Bammesk (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Everest-3D-Map-Type-EN.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]