Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words", the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria.

Promoting an image

If you believe an image should be featured, create a subpage (use the "For Nominations" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section.

For promotion, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets.

All users may comment. However, only those who have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and with at least 100 edits will be included in the numerical count. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. Nominations started in December are given three extra days, due to the holidays slowing down activity here.

The archive contains all opinions and comments collected for candidate nominations and their nomination results.

If you nominate an image here, please consider also uploading and nominating it at Commons to help ensure that the pictures can be used not just in the English Wikipedia but on all other Wikimedia projects as well.

Delisting an image

A featured picture can be nominated for delisting if you feel it no longer lives up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Create a subpage (use the "For Delists" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section.

Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture.

For delisting, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support, including the nominator. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures, except that:If the image to be delisted is not used in any articles by the time of closure, it must be delisted. If it is added to articles during the nomination, at least one week's stability is required for the nomination to be closed as "Kept". The nomination may be suspended if a week hasn't yet passed to give the rescue a chance.

Outside of the nominator, all voters are expected to have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and to have made a minimum of 100 edits. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. As with regular nominations, delist nominations are given three extra days to run if started in December.

  • Note that delisting an image does not mean deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article(s).
Shortcuts

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Step 1:
Evaluate

Evaluate the merit of a nomination against the featured picture criteria. Most users reference terms from this page when evaluating nominations.
Step 2:
Create a subpage
For Nominations

To create a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates for your nomination, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the field below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button.


For Delists (or Delist & Replace)

To create a subpage for your delist, add a title for the image you want to delist/replace in the field below and click the "Create new delist nomination" button.


Step 3:
Transclude and link

Transclude the newly created subpage to the Featured picture candidate list (direct link).

How to comment for Candidate Images

  • Write Support, if you approve of the picture. A reason is optional.
  • Write Oppose, followed by your reasoning, if you disapprove of the picture. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. If your concern is one that can only be addressed by the creator, and if they haven't nominated or commented on the image, and if they are a Wikipedian, you should notify them directly.
  • You can weak support or weak oppose instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion.
    • To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
  • If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case.
Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly.
Prior to giving an opinion, the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution) in an image editing program. Please note that the images are only displayed at thumbnail size on this page. The thumbnail links to the image description page which, in turn, links to the high-resolution version.

How to comment for Delist Images

  • Write Keep, followed by your reasons for keeping the picture.
  • Write Delist, followed by your reasons for delisting the picture.
  • Write Delist and Replace if you believe the image should be replaced by a better picture.
  • You can weak keep, weak delist or weak delist and replace instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion.
    • To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person.

You may find the glossary useful when you encounter acronyms or jargon in other voters' comments. You can also link to it by using {{FPCgloss}}.

Editing candidates

If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do not overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g., add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination. Edits should be appropriately captioned in sequential order (e.g., Edit 1, Edit 2, etc), and describe the modifications that have been applied.

Is my monitor adjusted correctly?

Gray contrast test image.svg

In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting.

Highlight test image.svg

Displays also differ greatly in their ability to show highlight detail. There are light grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display highlight detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings (probably reduce the contrast setting). Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal highlight detail. Please take this into account when voting.

Colortest.png

On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet (roughly 75–150 cm) away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background. Note that the image must be viewed in original size (263 × 68 pixels) - if enlarged or reduced, results are not accurate.

Note that on most consumer LCD displays (laptop or flat screen), viewing angle strongly affects these images. Correct adjustment on one part of the screen might be incorrect on another part for a stationary head position. Click on the images for more technical information. If possible, calibration with a hardware monitor calibrator is recommended.
To see recent changes, purge the page cache.
FPCs needing feedback


Wilhelm - Costume design for Arac, Gunon, and Scynthius (Princess Ida, 1884).jpg Princess Ida costume design


Scarlet lily beetles (Lilioceris lilii) mating.jpg Scarlet lily beetles mating


Spanish festoon (Zerynthia rumina).jpg Spanish festoon

Current nominations[edit]

Magna Lykseth-Skogman[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2022 at 22:53:26 (UTC)

Original – Magna Lykseth-Skogman as Isolde in Wagner's Tristan und Isolde, Kungliga Operan, 1909
Reason
An excellent photo of a notable Swedish opera singer. Had the misfortune of being nominated during a period of low participation last time. Passed on Commons with overwhelming support.
Articles in which this image appears
Magna Lykseth-Skogman
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator
Atelier Jaeger[sv], restored by Adam Cuerden

Hermit crab[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2022 at 10:36:10 (UTC)

Original – Hermit crab (Dardanus calidus), Teno-Rasca marine strip, Tenerife, Spain
Reason
Was seen on Commons FPC last week, where it was featured unanimously.
Articles in which this image appears
Dardanus calidus, Dardanus (crustacean)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Crustaceans
Creator
Diego Delso
  • Support as nominator – MER-C 10:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I didn't vote for this on Commons. Not encyclopaedic as so little of crab is seen. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charlesjsharp, your comment disconcerts me. What does "encyclopedic" and "how much of it is visible" have to do with each other? Following your comment the FP for this species would be a dead specimen without the shell where you cann appreciate the whole body, but that's not how you would find this crab in its habitat. If you find it in the nature it will be like this or even you see the shell and nothing behind it. I believe that the way you most frequently will find an animal in the nature is encyclopedic. --Poco2 15:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Wikipedia FP of an animal should show it well. In the case of a hermit crab, more crab should be visible than you show here. This is a land crab, but it shows what I mean. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, Charles, showing behaviour is a valid criteria too, and there's probably cases where seeing only a tiny bit of an animal might be encyclopedic for a non-main image. However, that... doesn't apply here as the problem is the angle, which pulls a lot of focus off the crab and onto the shell, but not in a way that shows off camoflauge or something. Oppose Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 23:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Charles. It's a nice shot in terms of color & detail, but some viewers would be likely to mistake the snail shell for the crab. – Sca (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moon geologic map[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2022 at 10:27:30 (UTC)

Original – 1:2,500,000-scale geologic map of the Moon (warning: 100 MB)
Reason
Was seen on Commons FPC last week, where it was featured unanimously. Peer reviewed (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2022.05.021).
Articles in which this image appears
Geology of the Moon
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Understanding
Creator
Ji et al.
  • Support as nominator – MER-C 10:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 22:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – MChinaGA 7:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Visual information not readily accessible to the eye. – Sca (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dusky Seaside Sparrow[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2022 at 21:42:16 (UTC)

Original – A dusky seaside sparrow, a subspecies declared extinct in 1990
Reason
This is an excellent photograph of an elusive and very small bird, particularly in relation to the standards of its era (probably the 70s or early 80s, when one only had 35 frames before having to change film, and focus stacking was not a thing) and a good scan from what was likely either positive or negative film (I suspect positive). This is the best image of this bird I've seen and it is implausible that a better one exists and impossible for one to be created.
Articles in which this image appears
Dusky seaside sparrow and also List of extinct bird species since 1500 and various others related to extinction
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
P. W. Sykes for the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife (i.e., I believe, Paul W. Sykes, Jr.)

James Birdseye McPherson[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2022 at 19:33:51 (UTC)

Original – General James Birdseye McPherson
Reason
Quite a nice image. Heavy on the head space, but that's old photography for you. Passed on Commons easily
Articles in which this image appears
James B. McPherson, Battle of Raymond
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military
Creator
Barr & Young, restored by Adam Cuerden
  • Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 19:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. MER-C 10:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Charlesjsharp (talk)
  • Support. This photograph looks to be the basis of the engraving on the McPherson fancy back, so presumably it was considered the best one available in 1891. blameless 00:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I think it's Ok to crop out empty space of historic photos, unless the photo itself is the subject of an article. We are just an encyclopedia, so utilizing images is our concern (and cropping empty space can sometimes be an improvement). We are not a repository of original works, as is Commons. Bammesk (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish festoon[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2022 at 18:56:48 (UTC)

Original – Spanish festoon (Zerynthia rumina) in Extremadura, Spain
Reason
High quality large image. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Spanish festoon
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator
Charlesjsharp

Scarlet lily beetles mating[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2022 at 18:43:23 (UTC)

Original – Scarlet lily beetles (Lilioceris lilii) mating in Oxfordshire, UK
Reason
High quality large image. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
scarlet lily beetle
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator
Charlesjsharp
  • Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What is the white thing on them? Some sort of seed fluff? It's near-perfect except that. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 19:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presuming you don't have a shot of similar quality without the fluff, Support Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 22:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I don't. They are pests and this pair were very very lucky to be removed from the lily and not killed. I wouldn't wnat to edit out natural stuff. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acanthite[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2022 at 03:11:14 (UTC)

Original – Acanthite crystal, specimen 4.0 × 2.5 × 1.5 cm from Morocco
Reason
Quality lead image of Acanthite crystal, a form of silver sulfide. According to this article, in nature silver "mostly occurs in sulfide ores, especially acanthite and argentite". Interestingly silver sulfides are useful in photography! I saw this today on Commons FP noms.
Articles in which this image appears
Acanthite, Silver, Noble metal
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Geology
Creator
Ivar Leidus

Delist: Amanita caesarea[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2022 at 14:41:06 (UTC)

MIsidentified mushroom
Reason
Not used in any English Wikipedia articles, and per User talk:Sasata/Archive 23#POTD notification 2 it is likely misidentified.
Articles this image appears in
N/A
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Amanita caesarea
Nominator
--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE)
  • Delist — --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 14:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Although, since it's unused, it's basically automatic unless someone can find A. a good enough identification that we can use the image with confidence (Sasata's message may well be enough), and B. a place to use it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 17:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – unused and uncertain identification. Bammesk (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – --Janke | Talk 11:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist The helper5667 (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist pending correct identification and actual use in an article. At least the image itself is of high quality. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, it is identified, sort of, but as a provisional species. Which means that until it's made an official species, it's in a limbo. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 18:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a good enough source to add it to List of Amanita species? There are other species in that list indicated as indefinite, and there is room for the image. I'd rather not do so myself, since the only thing I know about mushrooms is not to eat ones found anywhere except the grocery store. blameless 21:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The name has definitely made its way into the literature, but (just from some quick googling) it looks like the species hasn't been formerly named yet. For example, it has an entry in this book, which is from a university press. (The lead author is a prolific mycologist.) This seems to be the original (but not formally published) description; at least, it's cited in at least one scholarly paper. But this isn't a straightforward situation. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Delist: Michele Merkin[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2022 at 18:37:43 (UTC)

Michele Merkin 1.jpg
Reason
Legs appear heavily photoshopped (where are her knees?), butt proportions seem way off, spine should likely have cracked.... Honestly, I think this was a reasonable FP for when it happened, and it should have been on the main page years ago. But it's far, far too late for it now.
Articles this image appears in
Michele Merkin, Handbra
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Michele Merkin 1.jpg Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg
Nominator
Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs
  • Delist — Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 18:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – EV, i.e. I don't see much in her article that relates to nudity in her career. Bammesk (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Not a horrible photo, but not featured quality. Looking at it, i fail to see any educational value. The helper5667 (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think best case scenario, it's a photo of her, in her job as a model. However, it's also not even the lead image in her article. I have the vague idea it used to be in glamour photography, which I think would do a lot to justify it, but it's not there now. And then there's the... simply terrible usage from the original nomination. [1]. I somewhat feel bad nominating it, because I feel as POTD co-ordinator I should be a little more dispassionate, but it's also clear people are willing to spend three pages complaining about how bad of an image it is without taking any concrete action, so perhaps I can justify the nomination on the grounds of "I'm speaking up for people who will not listen to advice on proper forum to deal with the objections they're making". Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 17:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not familiar with the featured picture process so I have no vote, but I would like to point out that this picture is being discussed at Talk:Main Page#Planned POTD 2022-06-13 (File:Michele Merkin 1.jpg). Delisting this image does not resolve questions of what is or is not appropriate for POTD. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, if the objection is, as it was there, that the image isn't good enough for featured picture status, this 100% resolves the question. If there's anything else worth objecting to in the queue, I'm 100% sure I'll hear about it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 17:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That comment from a single user did not refer to the image's status as a featured picture. It referred to suitability as an image to be POTD. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This, not POTD, is the most appropriate venue to deal with quality issues. Other issues are irrelevant if quality isn't there, because quality alone can block it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 01:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – Exploitive, gimmicky, lacks EV. – Sca (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – --Janke | Talk 15:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - poor quality image, a poor example of the genre, an inaccurate likeness of the person, little if any educational value. Levivich 20:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per nom, and per Levivich: this just isn't a good photo, and the EV is very low. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Porta Nigra[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2022 at 19:46:37 (UTC)

Original – Porta Nigra at Trier, Germany
Reason
High resolution.
Articles in which this image appears
Porta Nigra
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Der Wolf im Wald
  • Support as nominator – TheFreeWorld (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – it replaced an almost identical image, so I am taking an exception to the 7-day waiting period. Bammesk (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a tricky site to photograph due to the road and the crowds, but the dark shaddows in the foreground spoil the photo for me and are (from checking some photos I took) totally avoidable. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The location is quite difficult. There are only a few days of the year when the north facade of the building is illuminated by the sun early in the morning. As you can see, the picture was taken on June 19th., one of the longest days of the year. I can't imagine that the building can be photographed with significantly fewer shadows in the foreground without the sunlight coming in too laterally. But you are welcome to link your photo of the Porta Nigra with less shadow, because I would be very interested in. Thanks! Also, I'd like to thank TheFreeWorld for the nomination! -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks a tiny bit tilted to the right. -- Sca (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 18:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. MER-C 10:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Charlesjsharp (talk)

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2022 at 20:48:27 (UTC)

Original – Excerpt from the declassified copy of the President's Daily Brief, dated August 6, 2001
Reason
This is a declassified intelligence briefing dated August 2001 which was part of the lead up to the 9/11 attacks in the United States. It holds two important places in US history. In the first case, President Bush's response of "All right. You've covered your ass." has been erroneously linked to this PDB. This response, however, came from a separate PDB linked to Bin Laden from several months earlier. During 2001, CIA analysts produced several reports warning of imminent attacks by Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Senior officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney and staff from Donald Rumsfeld's office at the Department of Defense, questioned whether these reports might not be deception on the part of al-Qaeda, purposely designed to needlessly expend resources in response. After reevaluating the legitimate risks of these recent reports, CIA analysts produced a report titled "UBL [Usama Bin Laden] Threats Are Real". It was after this report that the president gave that now-infamous response. In the second case, former CIA director George Tenet considered the PDB so sensitive that during July 2000 he indicated to the National Archives and Records Administration that none of them could be released for publication "no matter how old or historically significant it may be." During a briefing on May 21, 2002, Ari Fleischer, former White House Press Secretary, characterized the PDB as "the most highly sensitized classified document in the government." That makes any such report extraordinarily rare, and this report, having been leaked in 2002 before the release of a limited number of these reports from JFK, LBJ, Nixon, and Ford presidencies, would be both the first ever released and the most recently brief that we know of. Forth these reasons, I am nominating this image for FP status. I'm aware that the one side is a little below 1500px, however I believe that this is due to the size of a stand sheet of paper (8.5 x 11 in) and therefore, even it was 1500 x 1500 min, would not detract from the meaning or the importance of the memo, particularly in light of the above stated facts.
Articles in which this image appears
Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US
FP category for this image
Most likely Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History
Creator
United States Government
  • Support as nominator – TomStar81 (Talk) 20:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Not readily legible. – Sca (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Looks like a copy of a copy of a faxed document... --Janke | Talk 18:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's just text. The helper5667 (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinnularia[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2022 at 15:24:47 (UTC)

Original – Pinnularia major, specimen length 0.3 mm (0.012 inch)
Reason
Quality lead image of this microalgae. Specimen length 0.3 mm (0.012 inch).
Articles in which this image appears
Pinnularia + four more
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other lifeforms/Protists
Creator
Anatoly Mikhaltsov

Papaya[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2022 at 08:35:37 (UTC)

Original – Longitudinal section of papaya fruit showing orange flesh and numerous black seeds
Reason
Was seen on Commons FPC two weeks ago, where it was featured unanimously.
Articles in which this image appears
Papaya etc.
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits
Creator
Ivar Leidus

Black Bittern[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2022 at 08:27:21 (UTC)

Original – Black Bittern (Ixobrychus flavicollis). Warriewood Wetlands, New South Wales
Reason
Was seen on Commons FPC two weeks ago, where it was featured unanimously.
Articles in which this image appears
Black Bittern
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
JJ Harrison

Costume design for Arac, Gunon, and Scynthius in Princess Ida (1884)[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2022 at 11:59:09 (UTC)

Original – Costume design for Arac, Gunon, and Scynthius in Princess Ida (1884)
Reason
By far the best preserved costume design in William Charles John Pitcher, quite a nice bit of art, also lends some specific value to Princess Ida by adding to variety of images therein, though I know that's not always considered as highly as a lead image (which it is in the other article).
Articles in which this image appears
William Charles John Pitcher, Princess Ida
FP category for this image
WP:FP/THEATRE
Creator
William Charles John Pitcher (Wilhelm), restored by Adam Cuerden
  • Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 11:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – the file description should include the size, 25.3 x 20.4 cm (10 x 8 inch). Bammesk (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 16:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. MER-C 10:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations — to be closed[edit]

Nominations in this category are older than ten days and are to be closed. New votes will no longer be accepted.

Older nominations requiring additional input from users[edit]

These nominations have been moved here because consensus is impossible to determine without additional input from those who participated in the discussion. Usually this is because there was more than one edit of the image available, and no clear preference for one of them was determined. If you voted on these images previously, please update your vote to specify which edit(s) you are supporting.

Closing procedure[edit]

A script is available that automates the majority of these tasks: User:Jujutacular/closeFPC

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. If the nominator is new to FPC, consider placing {{subst:NotpromotedFPC|Image name}} on their talk page. To avoid overuse, do not use the template when in doubt.

When promoted, perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~
    • Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:
    Promoted File:FILENAME.JPG
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Add the image to:
  3. Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on top.
    The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Creator". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the creator does not have an article, use an external link if appropriate. For images with substantial editing by one or more Wikipedians, but created by someone else, use "Description at Article, by Creator (edited by Editor)" (all editors involved should be clear from the nomination). Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Creator". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.
  4. Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.
  5. Add the Featured Picture tag and star to the image page using {{Featured picture|page_name}} (replace page_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the page_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/page_name). To add this template you most likely will have to click the "create" button on the upper right if the "edit" button is not present, generally if the image originates from Commons.
  6. If an edited or alternative version of the originally nominated image is promoted, make sure that all articles contain the Featured Picture version, as opposed to the original.
  7. Notify the nominator or co-nominators by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:file_name.xxx}} on each nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
  8. If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|File:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.

Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:

  1. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} to the top of the section.
  2. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the June archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
  3. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

Delist closing procedure[edit]

Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article/s.

If consensus is to KEEP featured picture status, and the image is used in at least one article, perform the following:

  1. Check that the image has been in the article for at least one week. Otherwise, suspend the nomination to give it time to stabilize before continuing.
  2. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Kept|}} --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  3. Optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page.

If consensus is to DELIST, or the image is unused (and consensus is not for a replacement that is used), perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Delisted|}} --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
  3. Remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.

If consensus is to REPLACE (and at least one of the images is used in articles), perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Replaced|}} with File:NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
    • Replace NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG with the name of the replacement file.
  2. Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the delisted image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
  3. Update the replacement picture's tag, adding the tag {{Featured picture|delist/image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/image_name). Remove any no longer applicable tags from the original, replacement and from any other alternatives. If the alternatives were on Commons and no longer have any tags, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
  4. Replace the delisted Featured Picture in all articles with the new replacement Featured Picture version. Do NOT replace the original in non-article space, such as Talk Pages, FPC nominations, archives, etc.
  5. Ensure that the replacement image is included on the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs. Do this by replacing the original image with the new replacement image; do not add the replacement as a new Featured Picture.

Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:

  1. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
  2. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the archived delist nominations. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the bottom of the appropriate section of the archive.
  3. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

Recently closed nominations[edit]

Nominations in this category have already been closed and are here for the purposes of closure review by FPC contributors. Please do not add any further comments or votes regarding the original nomination. If you wish to discuss any of these closures, please do so at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. Nominations will stay here for three full days following closure and subsequently be removed.

Delist: Su-27[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2022 at 12:40:10 (UTC)

Su-27 on landing
Reason
Low quality, composition, not used in any article
Articles this image appears in
-
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Su-27 on landing
Nominator
Andrei (talk)
  • Delist — Andrei (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, though it's probably academic at this point. There's basically zero chance of it returning to use. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 13:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. MER-C 05:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – Bammesk (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • While the discussion is bellow qourum, this unused image can't retain its featured picture status and is delisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Delist: Chestnut-headed bee-eater[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2022 at 05:38:22 (UTC)

Chestnut-headed Bee-eater (Merops leschenaulti), Kaeng Krachan, Phetchaburi, Thailand
Not for delisting: the new FP
Reason
Replaced by newly promoted FP File:Chestnut-headed bee-eater (Merops leschenaulti) Yala.jpg.
Articles this image appears in
None
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Merops leschenaulti - Kaeng Krachan.jpg
Nominator
MER-C
  • Delist — MER-C 05:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will say background contrast is better in JJ's, but it's limited by the bird itself being so many fewer pixels. I'd be inclined to try to keep this one as a secondary photo in the article, though I think Charles' has to be the lead. It's at least a different angle that shows other details. It's unused at present, though, so unless something happens, it's not going to matter much Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 11:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – Bammesk (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to make this fun I've reprocessed from the RAW and reuploaded with full resolution. Now the old FP has more pixels, more detail and doesn't have a distracting background or half the head noise reduced to blur. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That... is a challenge. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 13:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struck my vote. Also, the nom image was added [2] to Chestnut-headed bee-eater earlier today. Bammesk (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye. By me. I figure it's worth considering. There's three images in the article, and, admittedly, that's probably too many. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 15:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the two, the busy background of the new FP isn't ideal in this case, IMO. Bammesk (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it sticks, consider this nomination withdrawn. MER-C 03:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Delist and replace: Love or Duty[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2022 at 17:00:38 (UTC)

Love or Duty by Gabriele Castagnola, restored by Durova from an old Library of Congress Scan. Has a strong yellow cast (admittedly, attractive, but not accurate from what I can tell) and (relatively) low resolution
Proposed replacement, restored by Adam Cuerden from a better scan.
Reason
Quite simply, the Library of Congress has rescanned this, it's now far, far better quality than the one we used to have, and thus a much better restoration can be done. Also, given it's used on Chromolithography, cutting out the colour check on the right - which shows the inks appearing in it and provides a quick check that all of them were printed - seems counterproductive when it only adds value. A defining feature of Chromolithography is the number of inks used in the high-end stuff, which this demonstrates.
On the restoration, I've checked, and in other paintings of the same scene he made he put a paint spill on the ground about where there's a blotch in this one, so I think that blotch in the shadow between her and the easel is meant to be there.
Articles this image appears in
Chromolithography, and, perhaps more questionably, Gabriele Castagnola
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/"Love or Duty" and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Love or dutyb.jpg
Nominator
Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • While the discussion is bellow qourum, this unused image can't retain its featured picture status and is delisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Iceberg in the Northeast Greenland National Park[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2022 at 17:58:23 (UTC)

Original – An iceberg in Fonfjord, Northeast Greenland National Park.
Reason
Rita Willaert's photograph of an iceberg in Fonfjord (part of the world's largest national park) is a beautiful, dynamic composition with excellent colour balance and contrast. The iceberg, shown in full (well, the above-the-surface portion), stands out to the viewer as a icy monolith of nature. An illusion of movement is created by the clouds, drawing the viewer's focus onto the iceberg; almost absorbing them. And, of course, the water itself is highlights this all and more, showing a subtle reflection of the massive iceberg in its surface, further drawing the viewer in.
The photograph is available in high resolution, is free to share and adapt under the Creative Commons license, and adds encyclpedic value to both the Fonfjord and Northeast Greenland National Park pages (and likely many more, should it be selected as a feature picture).
This eye-catching image, I was shocked to find, is not already a featured picture and I feel it demonstrated perfectly the type of incredible, awesome images Wikipedian's love to see.
For your consideration! Glandrid (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Articles in which this image appears
Fonfjord as the main article photo, giving the viewer an impression of how the fjord appears. Northeast Greenland National Park as an image within the article providing a similar function.
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator
Rita Willaert https://www.flickr.com/people/14417999@N00
  • Support as nominator – Glandrid (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Impressive shot but adds little to the article which is a requirement for FP here (not on Commons). Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Agree. Artful but but EV isn't strong. -- Sca (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks like good encyclopedic value to me. Tomer T (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tomer T Is "suppose" a combination of support and oppose? Armbrust The Homunculus 13:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    😂 I suppose it was "Support". Changed my vote. Tomer T (talk) 10:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's flashy, but I honestly think that's kind of fine for Fonfjord. It shows the fjord and one of the impressive sights that (admittedly not always) can be seen in it. There's enough background behind the iceberg to do it for me. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 11:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we have better pictures of icebergs and for the fjord, a more useful pic would show the actual fjord rather than focus on an iceberg in it. You really can't see much of the shape, geography etc. in this image. (t · c) buidhe 01:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Design for The Cenotaph[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2022 at 04:09:01 (UTC)

Original – Edwin Lutyens' design for the permanent version of The Cenotaph
Reason
A nice bit of design work. I think I can fairly firmly say this was the final form, given this illustration of the Cenotaph, published in the Illustrated London News November 13 1920, page 769, states it's based on Lutyen's design work, and follows the flag folding (They're cloth flags, so are drawn differently in different sketches) exactly. Given that was published two days after the unveiling, we can be confident this was the final design.

As for restoration, I've tried to be conservative, largely trying to remove stains on the paper.

Articles in which this image appears
The Cenotaph
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture maybe? Feel free to suggest better alternatives Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams
Creator
Edwin Lutyens, lightly restored by Adam Cuerden
  • Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 04:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams would be better for this image. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 09:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 10:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Does look like it was the final design drawing (not a sketch) apart from the thing on the top (a weather vane?) Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's just the line of symmetry (C.L.= Centre Line?). Could be wrong. In any case, the same letters and line appears at the bottom, so I don't think it's a design element. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 09:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Yes, the CL notation is typical of architectural drawings from that period. ProfDEH (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. MER-C 10:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Interesting and encyclopedic, even without the bonus historical value as an original drawing by the architect. Nicely restored. We could use more like this. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Bammesk (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cenotaph sketch by Lutyens.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 06:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Archaeological Museum, Athens[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2022 at 18:44:58 (UTC)

Original – National Archaeological Museum, Athens
Reason
Great quality and EV
Articles in which this image appears
National Archaeological Museum, Athens, List of largest art museums
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
User:Der Wolf im Wald
  • Support as nominator – Andrei (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Is it just my imagination, or is the vertical perspective sightly distorted? – Sca (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – A dull photograph of an undistinguished building. ProfDEH (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tend to agree with ProfDEH. A FP of this building would really be one that shows its spectacular collections, not the rather pedestrian and run down building. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The building is one of the best neogreek examples, built by the same guy who designed the Parliament 2A00:F41:3807:FBC4:925F:E326:3D6A:A788 (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a bunch of buildings in Athens that look like that, and this one is pretty run down so isn't a great example of the style. It's one of the best museums I've visited, but it's building really isn't great. Nick-D (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 04:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended nominations[edit]

This section is for Featured Picture (or delisting) candidacies whose closure is postponed for additional editing, rendering, or copyright clarification.

The Dover Boys[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2022 at 03:30:01 (UTC)

Original – The Dover Boys at Pimento University or The Rivals of Roquefort Hall (also known as The Dover Boys) is a 1942 Warner Bros. Merrie Melodies cartoon directed by Chuck Jones. It is one of the first cartoons to make extensive use of limited animation, as well as other techniques that would only be more broadly popularized in the 1950s.
Reason
This is just a fun cartoon to watch and is highly regarded as one of the best animated shorts ever made.
Articles in which this image appears
The Dover Boys at Pimento University or The Rivals of Roquefort Hall
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
Creator
Chuck Jones
  • Support as nominator – GamerPro64 03:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to support, but are we certain about the copyright? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 12:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The webpage says: "it is one of the few Warner Bros. shorts from that era that fell into the public domain, although it has seen releases from MGM/UA Home Video and Warner Home Video." - if that can be confirmed, I'll support! (BTW, I don't think it is a coincidence that the "bad guy" bears a resemblance to Walt Disney... ;-) --Janke | Talk 16:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, then. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 19:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cant really see any concrete evidence its in public domain but I have seen it being sold by third party distributors. GamerPro64 20:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if copyright status can be confirmed. MER-C 10:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support if the copyright can be verified. If anyone can check the Film Superlist book in a nearby library search here. We can suspend the nom, if anyone volunteers to check the book. Bammesk (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stated as Public Domain on Archive.org [[3]] - --Janke | Talk 18:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That really isn't much of a guide. Archive.org uses Egyptian Public Domain, which is incredibly easy to fall into. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 18:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Historically important in the field of animation, and the video is excellent quality. Waxworker (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The helper5667 (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I might be able to check the Film Superlist book next week and verify the copyright status. Let's not close this nom for a week @Armbrust:. Bammesk (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that works for me. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 18:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postpone closure to allow the copyright of the video to be checked. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=1094009732"