Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Skip to: Table of contents • Current nominations • To be closed • More input needed • Recently closed • Suspended candidates

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-third 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-third 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?

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.

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.

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 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 view edit

Current nominations[edit]

Marsh fritillary female[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2018 at 18:09:12 (UTC)

Original – Marsh fritillary (Euphydryas aurinia) female in Brickes Wood, Lydlinch, Dorset, England

Reason: High quality large image. FP on Commons. Male of same species showing wing upperside just promoted to FP on English Wikipedia.
Articles in which this image appears: Marsh fritillary
FP category for this image: lWikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator: Charlesjsharp

Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Support. MER-C 18:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Support – Bammesk (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Support. Kaldari (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Support – Great detail, nice contrast. Sca (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Set: Turgot map of Paris[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2018 at 20:08:02 (UTC)

Original – The Turgot map of Paris (full map) WARNING: 850 MB!

Reason: Highly detailed reproduction of this historic map. Featured on Commons. This is a set nomination. The full image and all 20 individual plates above (20 images altogether) are all nominated.

Articles in which this image appears: Turgot map of Paris
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps
Creator: Michel-Étienne Turgot

Support as nominator – MER-C 20:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose – Not visually accessible to Main Page readers. Useful as a historical document only. Sca (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Support – Bammesk (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Julia Shaw[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2018 at 10:54:22 (UTC)

Original – German-Canadian psychologist Julia Shaw, photographed in March 2018

Alternative 1 - not cropped

Alternative 2a – CSS image crop

Alternative 2 – CSS image crop

Reason: This crop of File:Julia Shaw 2018-03-10.jpg is the lead image in the article Julia Shaw (psychologist). The original image has been released through the OTRS and is of a high quality, so I believe this meets the FP criteria.
Articles in which this image appears: Julia Shaw (psychologist)
FP category for this image: People/Science and engineering
Creator: Boris Breuer; cropped by Kmhkmh

Support as nominator – A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment The crop is uneven, her right shoulder is chopped off. Brandmeister^talk 11:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a more even crop could be extracted from the original image (I wouldn't really know how to do that well enough). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally I prefer a cropped version including the completely hair, but tastes differ. I can create another crop including both shoulders, if that is of any concern. My goal is/was simply to provide a better thumbbnail of her face (in the associated articles I created). The crop is basically just a cut & paste job with Gimp. I have no real opinion on the nomination. Personally if anything I'd rather nominate the original rather than this crop or similar derivatives. But i'm not familiar with the nomination criteria or goals.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I added the original. It will be considered alongside the crop. That said, I agree with Brandmeister's point. MER-C 20:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I added Alternate 2a, a temporary crop (CSS image crop). If it gets enough support then a permanent crop can be uploaded by the nominator or Kmhkmh. Support Alternate 2a or other similar crops. Bammesk (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

That's fine as crop for commons, for the wikipedia articles however I prefer picture that focuses more on the face, which is more common/useful for biographic article imho. So in this case only the torso above her hands.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I edited the CSS crop to that extent. Revert if undesired. MER-C 10:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't see that in time, meanwhile I've aleady replaced the pictures in the articles by another crop more or less the same as yours.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Support alternative 2 (File:Julia Shaw 2018-03-10 cropped.jpg). MER-C 16:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

already uploaded

Support alternative 2, but would also support the rest of the body. Brandmeister^talk 10:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Am I the only one who would support the original image if the right half was cropped only? Mattximus (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

No you are not, that's what I proposed in this diff as Alternate 2, now labeled Alternate 2a. That's my preference. I have a hard time supporting the recent crops, they are too tight and look like a passport photo. Biography infoboxes can and do have full body and half body photos. Bammesk (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You lost me there. The criticism above concerns Alternative 2, if I understand that correctly and the recent crops are pretty much identical to alternative 2.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I re-added the original Alternative 2, per this diff, now labeled Alternative 2a. And updated my posts above accordingly. Bammesk (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I really disagree on that one. Headshots are a better choice as a first the first picture in a biographic article or for its infobox as it is all about visual recognition, which clearly gets impaired with half or full body pictures in thumbnail size. The latter are better suited as a second picture later on in the article. The fact that many articles may not use a headshot or something close to a it (yet) is imho simply due to the fact that at the time no better image was available (and the author may not have known hot to creae a crop or the quality of the image was insifficient for a decent crop).

In any case I don't care much in term of the nomination, but I really object to switching the image in the articles on Julia Shaw to a full torso picture in thumbnail size.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Delist: Saint Vitus Cathedral[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2018 at 12:59:08 (UTC)

landscape

Reason: Not used in any articles, low resolution, not up to modern standards re: interiors.
Articles this image appears in: None
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/St Vitus stained glass
Nominator: MER-C

Delist — MER-C 12:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Delist – Substandard image. Sca (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Delist - Well below current standards. Mattximus (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Delist – Bammesk (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Europa[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2018 at 02:58:09 (UTC)

Original (3,680 × 2,720 pixels) – Realistic-color Galileo mosaic of Europa's anti-Jovian hemisphere showing numerous lineae

Alternative 1 (2,300 × 1,700 pixels)

Reason: High resolution, FP on Commons, good EV
Articles in which this image appears: Europa (moon), Galileo (spacecraft), etc.
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
Creator: NASA / Jet Propulsion Lab-Caltech / SETI Institute, uploaded by WolfmanSF

Support as nominator – The NMI User (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose – upsampled. I would support an upload from the original TIFF (second revision of this file). MER-C 09:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Support alternative – I have uploaded the said revision, which has not undergone additional upsampling and sharpening. MER-C 13:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Support as uploader – It was upsampled because the image's fine detail is difficult to appreciate in the smaller version (without putting your nose up to the monitor, that is – check out, for example, the ridges near the terminator). An image such as this would have gone through many types of processing and manipulation before being released, so the suggestion that we shouldn't edit it further makes little sense. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Support both, prefer Alternate 1. Whichever is stable in the article is Ok with me. Bammesk (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose upsampled image, support Alternate 1 - nice image, doesn't need to be upsampled. Kaldari (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

NGC 2818[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2018 at 02:48:15 (UTC)

Original – Hubble Space Telescope image of NGC 2818

Reason: High resolution, this image appears in two articles on the English Wikipedia
Articles in which this image appears: NGC 2818, Pyxis
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
Creator: NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)

Support as nominator – The NMI User (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Support Freshman404^Talk 06:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Doesn't meet size requirements. MER-C 09:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

NGC 7635[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2018 at 02:24:50 (UTC)

Original – Wide field image of NGC 7635 as captured by the Hubble telescope.

Reason: High resolution, this image appears on two articles
Articles in which this image appears: NGC 7635, List of Hubble anniversary images
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
Creator: NASA, ESA, Hubble Heritage Team

Support as nominator – The NMI User (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
support Beautiful :) Freshman404^Talk 06:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The caption needs to state that this is not an approximate true color image both here and in the article. Spectral line imaging has encyclopedic and scientific value, but you need to explain this specifically. (The noise is a result of the intentionally narrow bandpass, thus reducing the signal to noise ratio). MER-C 09:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Delist: Cheshire Regiment trench Somme 1916[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2018 at 13:28:31 (UTC)

World War I

Reason: Short of minimum requirements on both sides (1,400 × 1,069 px) for illustrating World War I, today's POTD. Surely when it comes to such broad topics, better high-resolution alternatives exist, even in natural color.
Articles this image appears in: Cheshire Regiment, 100+ other pages
Previous nomination/s
Nominator: Brandmeister^talk

Delist — Brandmeister^talk 13:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Delist yes there are surely better quality images showing a trench in WW1. Mattximus (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Delist -- The NMI User (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Delist – Per previous. Sca (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
~~Delist~~. A higher resolution scan of this photo should also be possible. MER-C 21:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
While this statement is true, I forgot we don't delist on resolution grounds alone. I'd like to see a replacement before delisting, hence keep. MER-C 15:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep, our goal is not to feature the highest resolution images, it's to feature the best images. Unless someone has a better image of a WWI trench to offer, I think this one should stay. Kaldari (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep for now - it's all very well to say there are "surely" better WWI trench images... but are there? Happy to reconsider if there are, but this seems decent quality considering the circumstances, is evocative, historically important and irreplaceable, and no evidence has been produced that better images actually exist. TSP (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Delist and replace: Ginevra de’ Benci[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2018 at 12:55:29 (UTC)

Ginevra de' Benci

Proposed replacement

Reason: Superseded in articles by higher resolution version.
Articles this image appears in: Ginevra de' Benci, etc.
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ginevra de' Benci
Nominator: MER-C

Replace — MER-C 12:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Replace – Bammesk (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Replace Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Replace --Janke | Talk 11:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Replace -- The NMI User (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

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.

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2018 at 18:47:32 (UTC)

Original – Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, by Joe Rosenthal

Retouched by Alexis Jazz, third version – Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, by Joe Rosenthal

Retouched 2 by Bammesk, second version – Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, by Joe Rosenthal

Reason: iconic photograph. After a long debate, it finally appears that the copyright was not renewed.
Articles in which this image appears: Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War II
Creator: Joe Rosenthal

Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose this jpeg version due to strong artifacts, either from editing or jpeg compression. The sky is heavily speckled - compare with the png or tif versions. --Janke | Talk 20:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Janke: I could propose File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, by Joe Rosenthal.jpg, but overall, I think this one is better. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed the jpeg artifacts. The nom image has a lot more detail than the png and tif versions. ~~Support~~ (revised my vote below) , iconic and good quality for a 1940s war photo. Bammesk (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Support This is a decent version of this iconic photograph: the EV is huge. Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Support this new version with less noticeable grain & artifacts. --Janke | Talk 11:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
comment what is the source for the copyright not being renewed?©Geni (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Reading the arguments on Commons [1], [2], [3], [4], no one has established that copyright was renewed. The summary of Commons arguments are: copyright might have been renewed and that such renewal could not be confirmed in the renewal records [5]. Bammesk (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
On a sidenote: the photo was published without a copyright notice in a 2016 book [6] [7] of 100 influential photographs by Time magazine. 32 of the 100 photos have a copyright notice and 68 do not, the Iwo Jima photo does not: [8]. This gives additional credence to the public domain arguments on Commons.
@Geni: Also this LoC copyright notice. Alexis Jazz (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Support -- KTC (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Support. MER-C 12:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Support -- The NMI User (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Support - I've not yet looked closely at the copyright arguments, and will defer to Commons folk to sort that out. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Support GMG ^talk 14:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Support all versions, I'll leave it to others to decide which is best. Alexis Jazz (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment I've collected links to the copyright discussions on c:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Alexis Jazz (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Retouch discussion[edit]

Comment the retouched version from Bammesk should be uploaded as a separate file (c:COM:OVERWRITE). While it looks better overall, some details were also lost, so the original needs to be kept as a separate file. If Bammesk uploads the restored version as a separate file and we're voting on that, ~~you can count a support vote from me as well.~~ I'll vote more clearly above. Alexis Jazz (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment I found another version with less compression artifacts. The sky still looks speckled, I suspect the photo was saved as a .gif at some point. Alexis Jazz (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment I added a retouched version. Alexis Jazz (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Yann, Bammesk, Nick-D, Janke, KTC, MER-C, The NMI User, Rhododendrites, and GreenMeansGo: An alternate image was added the nominations. Please update your !vote to indicate which version(s) you support. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh cool. I see lots of dust spot removal, which I wasn't going to fuss about given the nature of the photo. Is there anything else I'm missing? GMG ^talk 21:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: the sky was blurred. Alexis Jazz (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I uploaded another retouch, Retouched 2, made from the higher quality original that Alexis Jazz gave us here. Both retouched noms are worthy of support. My upload has less artifacts and is a bit sharper along soldier/background boundaries, smoother left valley, smoother background between soldier's arms/legs, and I touched up the lower left edge. ~~Also touched up a couple of spots based on the negative image here: [9], [10]~~(no longer so, see below). I Support both retouches but prefer Retouch 2. Bammesk (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Either of the versions are OK for me, but Retouched 2 is slightly better. --Yann (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment I've improved my retouched version a bit. You may have to refresh the page/image in your browser. Alexis Jazz (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Well I'll say that I prefer some retouched version to the original, but my retouching expertise is mediocre at best, and so I don't pretend to have an authoritative opinion on which version is better. GMG ^talk 14:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

~~I prefer retouch #2~~. MER-C 18:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@MER-C: can you say why? Perhaps I can improve my version. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Retouch 1 has sufficiently improved over #2 in the time since I wrote that comment. ~~I now prefer #1 as the specs that were there are there no longer.~~ MER-C 15:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting this after the dust has settled, I prefer #2 due to the white streak on the side. MER-C 11:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I suppose I prefer #2, but two comments: (1) why is the [rivet?] on the helmet of the soldier on the right noticeably brighter in just that version? (2) in both retouches there's a space between the leftmost and second leftmost soldiers, around waist level, that looks to be actually a gap between them rather than a blemish on the photo itself, but it's smoothed out... (in case that isn't clear I've added an annotation to that image on Commons here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not a gap but actually light that is reflected off of the handle of a holstered knife, more easily seen in File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, by Joe Rosenthal.jpg. I've corrected my version accordingly. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I don't understand your first question? About question 2: as I said above, I used the negative image here: [11], [12] as a guide. The gap is smaller in the negative, that's what I went by. However looking at the negative more carefully, it has bleeding (or diffusion) because it is old, which would make the gaps smaller. So I did a recheck of all gaps, and compared the print gaps to the negative gaps, and it turns out all print gaps are a few pixels wider than the negative gaps. So going strictly by the negative is not a good idea (because of the bleeding). I redid the gap and did an upload (also redid another tiny gap/spot at shoulder level, plus helmet of left soldier, the things I had relied on the negative for). Thanks for the question! Bammesk (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: Can you say what you mean in your first question? Nothing “on the helmet of the soldier on the right” is “noticeably brighter” in any version! Bammesk (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been following and I'd just like to say that maybe this discussion is not yet ripe to be closed. The images are evolving, which is ultimately for the good of the project(s), and this is an iconic image of the type we don't often see discussed. GMG ^talk 22:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I agree. I'm not sure if we are done retouching (unless someone points out flaws in my version, I am) but if we are it still leaves us with three images to pick from. Since I created one of them, I support all three. There are arguments for sticking to the original and between the retouched versions it'll largely be matter of taste. Bammesk filled in the gaps one way, I did it another way. Alexis Jazz (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

For reference, Commons promoted the original. MER-C 14:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Actually 16 of 18 votes on Commons here were for a restored version uploaded at 02:11, 29 August 2018. Bammesk (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC) . . . Obviously the higher quality original uploaded later at 09:16, 4 September 2018, is more deserving of promotion, but not when there is a cleaned up version of it, IMO. Bammesk (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
So how exactly ought we go about finding some resolution to this nomination? GMG ^talk 21:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Everyone, who already voted, should indicate which version(s) they support. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I swapped my preference to retouch 2. Putting my admin and ex-FPC closer hat on, I would now close this as promote retouch 2 if I hadn't had voted - the choice is between the retouches, and #2 has more first preferences than #1. MER-C 11:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Re-pinging participants. This has been open now for almost two months, and we do need to try to find some type of resolution.
@Yann:@Janke:@Bammesk:@Nick-D:@Geni:@Alexis Jazz:@KTC:@The NMI User:@Rhododendrites:@Armbrust:
GMG ^talk 12:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: As I said, I support all three. But I will say this: when I added to/updated Wikipedias, I used the original. Leaving it to the Wikipedias to switch to a retouched version. No Wikipedia (zero, not Norsk Wikipedia) (zero, the number, not Wikipedia Zero) made the switch. - Alexis Jazz 18:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Support retouched1 I think this is an improvement on the original, and retouched2 looks a little bit washed out Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Closing procedure[edit]

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

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

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.
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/Image name}} to the top of the section.
Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the November archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
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.
If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

When promoted, perform the following:

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.
Add the image to:
- Template:Announcements/New featured content - newest on top, remove the oldest so that 15 are listed at all times.
- Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom.
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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}}.
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}}.
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.
Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the November archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
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:

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.
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.
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.
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 Retained section of the archive.
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:

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.
Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
Remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.
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.
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}} page to the bottom of the Delisted section of the archive.

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

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.
Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the delisted image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
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}}.
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.
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.
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.
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 Replaced section of the archive.

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.

The Alchemist Discovering Phosphorus[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2018 at 15:01:49 (UTC)

Original – The Alchymist, in Search of the Philosopher's Stone, Discovers Phosphorus, and prays for the successful Conclusion of his operation, as was the custom of the Ancient Chymical Astrologers, Joseph Wright of Derby

Reason: High quality reproduction of a painting with its own article and significant impact elsewhere.
Articles in which this image appears: The Alchemist Discovering Phosphorus, Philosopher's stone, History of pseudoscience, etc.
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Joseph Wright of Derby

Support as nominator – MER-C 15:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Question Looking at other versions online, this one looks too dark. Have you seen the picture in real life? 09:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
No, but I found this photograph of the painting as it is displayed (bottom right), which would suggest the painting is darker than some direct photographs on the web. The artist is famous for chiaroscuro, so some darkness is expected. MER-C 20:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I think yours is darker than the one you signpost. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I no longer live near Derby but I am very familiar with this painting and it is dark, dark and dark again hence the dramatic effect of the lit faces (chiaroscuro indeed and a master - if the photo doesn't show this it has failed).Look at his other paintings, once he got the trick he kept it.The museum lecture photo doesn't help.It looks overlit. Wright himself would, I am sure, have chosen this present version. Subjective support from me then. Notafly (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Ps.

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Marsh fritillary male[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2018 at 22:13:17 (UTC)

Original – Marsh fritillary (Euphydryas aurinia) male in Brickes Wood, Lydlinch, Dorset, England

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

Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Support. I would also consider supporting this image as a set with File:Marsh fritillary (Euphydryas aurinia) female underside.jpg, or the two images with all subspecies. MER-C 15:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Support. Nice shot! --Janke | Talk 10:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Are fritillaries known for their fertility? – (Sorry!) Sca (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

No way, they do not breed readily! Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Congrats on this quickly approved TFP. – Sca (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Support - The NMI User (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose – there are better images in the article. Bammesk (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Composite macro photo of LED matrix[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2018 at 21:34:19 (UTC)

Original – Composite image of a 11x44 LED matrix name tag display using SMD LEDs. Top: A little over half of the 21x86 mm display. Center: Close-up of 0.8x1.6mm LEDs in ambient light. Bottom: LEDs in their own red light.

Reason: Very high EV, good quality bellows macro photo (no DOF problem), shows even the minuscule LED chips and gold bonding wires inside the tiny 1.6 x 0.8 mm transparent surface-mount packages. Also shows a wider image of the matrix, as well as LEDs in their own light.
Articles in which this image appears: Light-emitting diode, Surface-mount technology
FP category for this image: materials science
Creator: Janke

Support as nominator – Janke | Talk 21:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Support – Bammesk (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Support. MER-C 09:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Support - The NMI User (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Phidippus otiosus[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2018 at 01:55:32 (UTC)

Original – Female Phidippus otiosus jumping spider from Highlands County, Florida

Reason: High resolution macro image, good composition, cleanly isolated from background
Articles in which this image appears: Phidippus otiosus
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Arachnids
Creator: David E. Hill

Support as nominator – Kaldari (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Not enough general sharpness/definition and poor DoF. Quality possibly limited by camera. Line top left (scale?) doesn't work for me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Charlesjsharp: Although this looks a bit like a tarantula, it's actually a tiny jumping spider (about the size of a house fly). With a macro photo of something so small it isn't possible to have both better sharpness and DoF (due to diffraction softening). f/11 (the aperture setting that was used) is right in the sweet spot for an SLR sensor. If you pushed it to f/16 (for more DoF) it would be diffraction limited and start looking soft. Personally, I think the photographer made a good trade-off between DoF and sharpness as most of the spider is in focus, especially the part closest to the viewer. Kaldari (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Looking at your user page, it looks like you probably already know everything I wrote above. Do you know of any way you could improve both the sharpness and DoF (as I don't). Kaldari (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not possible to get an FP of a tiny insect with a normal macro lens. I've photographed dozens but no FPs. The settings are fine otherwise. The secret is focus stacking or specialist camera equipment. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Roughtail rock agama[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2018 at 23:11:15 (UTC)

Original – Roughtail rock agama (Stellagama stellio brachydactyla), Dana Biosphere Reserve, Jordan

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

Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Support, sharp image, good composition, good EV. Kaldari (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Support. MER-C 16:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Support - Excellent EV, and great quality shot. Mattximus (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Support - The NMI User (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Promoted File:Roughtail rock agama (Stellagama stellio brachydactyla).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Persepolis[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2018 at 10:11:23 (UTC)

Original – Panoramic view of Persepolis, the ceremonial capital of the Achaemenid Empire

Reason: Highly detailed panorama of this World Heritage site. Featured on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Persepolis, History of Iran
FP category for this image: link to category (listed on the WP:FP page) that best describes the image
Creator: Diego Delso

Support as nominator – MER-C 10:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose – Horizon bent & tilted, looks very weird. Could perhaps be fixed (but only from original RAW images, per author's request). --Janke | Talk 10:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose – Per Janke. Sca (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Support. A beautiful Panoramic picture. Gnosis (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Support Freshman404^Talk 06:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Broadway Tower, Worcestershire[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2018 at 06:53:26 (UTC)

Original – Broadway Tower is a folly on Broadway Hill, near the large village of Broadway, in the English county of Worcestershire, at the second-highest point of the Cotswolds (after Cleeve Hill). Broadway Tower's base is 1,024 feet (312 metres) above sea level. The tower itself stands 65 feet (20 metres) high.

Reason: Good image quality, already featured Commons, and used in several articles. It looks like User:Saffron Blaze started to nominate this photo but may not have transcluded the nomination because it expired without votes other than his/her own. There is another photo of the tower which is already featured, and I think that having them both be featured is okay.
Articles in which this image appears: Broadway Tower, Worcestershire, Folly, Worcestershire, Cotswold Way, James Wyatt, Thomas Phillipps, Architecture of the United Kingdom
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Saffron Blaze

Support as nominator – Pine^✉ 06:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment: Another (properly transcluded) previous nom is at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Broadway Tower 2012.jpg. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose – Overly extensive surrounding space that lacks visual information. Sca (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment – per Paul we have an existing FP [13]. The nom image has more detail, I would support a delist and replace. Bammesk (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I would also support a crop and the replacement of the existing image. MER-C 17:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Because we already have a featured image of this building. I believe for EV purposes we are to have only 1 picture nominated per subject. Mattximus (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Paxton's Tower[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2018 at 06:36:52 (UTC)

Original – Paxton's Tower is a Neo-Gothic folly erected in honour of Lord Nelson. It is a visitor attraction that can be combined with a visit to the nearby National Botanic Garden of Wales. Its high location provides views over the Botanic Gardens and the Tywi valley. The tower, a grade II* listed building, is under the care of the National Trust.

Reason: Good EV
Articles in which this image appears: Paxton's Tower
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Mattofaberystwyth, edited by Pine

Support as nominator – Pine^✉ 06:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Support Looks good to me, great EV. Mattximus (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Support. MER-C 09:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Weak oppose – the shadow size on the front face is too large. An image like this would be an improvement. Bammesk (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)