In today's world, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates has become a topic of great relevance and interest to a wide spectrum of society. Since its emergence, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates has captured the attention of academics, researchers, professionals and the general public due to its significant impact in various areas. Over time, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates has evolved and has generated endless debates, analyzes and reflections that seek to understand its implications and consequences. In this article, we will thoroughly explore the phenomenon of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, examining its many facets and delving into its importance in the current context.
Selection of high-quality pictures by the community
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).
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.
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.
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 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.
Voting period ends on 8 May 2024 at 14:27:27 (UTC)
Reason
Close up view of Comatricha nigra, a species of Slime mold in class Myxogastria. This class is slimy to the touch during part of its life, therefore giving the larger group its name 'slime' mold. The species article is weak (it describes the size, millimeter range, and appearance), but the image is also used in the group article. On a sidenote: in the photo I think there is some visible slime at the base of the stalks (visible at full size).
Oppose – Govt. promotional photo that tells nothing about highly perilous Apollo 13 mission. Faces of subjects constitute relatively small proportion of image. – Sca (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per Sca. These men weren't known for wearing suits, so the EV is modest here. Commons has several photos of the Apollo 13 crew wearing spacesuits (including one posing while doing so with their rocket) that have stronger EV, though the resolution looks lowish - presumably higher res versions are available. Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 May 2024 at 00:33:09 (UTC)
Reason
Close up view of the Litli-Hrútur eruption in Iceland in 2023. The wow factor does it for me. It’s a good addition to three articles listed below. It can also be added to the Fagradalsfjall article if there is consensus for it.
Support as nominator – The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose – A good nomination, but there's a decent amount of loss of focus on the petal borders (maybe some stacking can help) and the lighting is a bit off. Also, another angle with less leaves would increase the EV significantly. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 May 2024 at 19:54:32 (UTC)
Reason
High quality reproduction of a document. Provides a lot of EV in the only article which it appears in, in that it is a direct relic of the Dawes Plan itself. Good POTD for October 15 2024 (100th anniversary of this document).
Are the colours natural? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 16:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Conditional support- A good nomination with adequate EV, but (per Adam's query) I came across File:Dawes Anleihe 1924 1000$.jpg and saw the colors are way off in the nom. I am not sure which is closer to the original because a Google search also returned at least half a dozen color reproductions of the bill. If we could get a very good source or a scan (maybe the nomination itself) to prove the current nom is the original/closer to the original color, I'd support. Good luck. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Now, after searching across various sources, I have discovered many variant scans of this document, even by auction houses. Here is a list of the variants I have discovered:
Every one of these scans have slightly different colors, contrast, brightness, whatever. And I am not sure which is the true correct version as I am no scripophile myself. Is it possible that during the printing of the loans that different colors were used? Is it possible that most of these scans are of forgeries? I was unable to find any definitive source for any questions, but a good place to look might be German Dollar Bonds issued between 1924 and 1937 by F. Paul Seabrook. However, I am not able to access the book as it appears the book is not available online or print in any way, shape, or form. This blog post on Tumblr attests to its existence and describes it, but I can't find an entry on Google Books, or WorldCat, or even an ISBN. ―Howard • 🌽33 17:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Lots of these notes were issues over many years. It makes sense that not all had identical color tones, fine details, etc. The uploader seems legit. They have 2000+ uploads of similar (historic) documents. Translating some of their talk page posts Here shows the uploader is part of a group or informal organization (also see their file 'source' descriptions). I doubt the uploads are manipulated in any significant way. But I don't know much about old prints though. Perhaps Adam can judge the integrity of the uploader's work by looking at some of their other uploads. Bammesk (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment As someone who has scanned aging documents extensively, the colours look reasonable to me. The marks along the top edge are in the same range, indicating that whatever has caused the lightening of the paper happened before the damage that resulted in the brown spots. The greens at the top are slightly lighter, while the blacks seem to have held their tone better; if this were artificial, I'd expect the blacks to likewise be lighter. I do feel that the cutout could have been a bit better, however - the bottom still has some unnatural straight lines. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
You don't find the purple-to-yellow-to-purple gradient off for the background paper? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 22:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
It definitely feels more like some sort of uneven fading due to sub-optimal storage than a technical flaw with the scanner. I no longer have the documents, due to changes in my situation, but this certificate and this poster (also on the other side) both had uneven fading. Admittedly, those were on a much browner paper (and indeed the fading is skewed yellow, rather than the green tone of the nomination). I personally don't think the image is FP quality, due to the blemish, but I don't feel like it's beyond the realm of possibility for this scan to be reflective of the document. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the available images of these documents online, it does seem to be a common issue. This one is clearly not a reproduction of our digital copy (has the full emblem, as well as the tickets) and has similar fading issues. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Searching for "Dawes Anleihe 1924" on Goggle images returns many similar examples. This being a banknote, could the background paper gradient been in part intentional (a security feature)? Bammesk (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Potentially? I'm also seeing images like this, which notably has a black instead of a red emblem, and this, which was overstamped. There could have been different printings, with some variants to show series, but I'm not sure. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
The note itself says $110 million was issued, and the denomination is $1000, with 1924 technology. It's plausible that several batched were printed over time, and that the color tone and other fine details weren't exactly identical. For instance among the examples linked to above I see at least two similar, but different, hand written signatures on the lower left corner. Bammesk (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Summing up, the exact legitimacy of the bill is still disputed and none of us are sure how close this is to the original. I'm okay with the fine details and prints, but it's the legitimacy of the color that is bothering. Is there any way, like some noticeboard in German Wikipedia or Teahouse or helpdesk who can dig up more about this? The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 May 2024 at 15:49:02 (UTC)
Reason
Good visualization of a neutrophil (a type of white blood cell) neutralizing (phagocytosis, or eating) a bacteria in human blood, invitro. Good addition to two articles.
Support as nominator – MER-C 10:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment – Perhaps the image should be cropped? There is too much of a dark background. ―Howard • 🌽33 19:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment – According to EXIF, this was taken with flash. Looks like it's been edited for a spotlight effect, which looks unnatural. --Janke | Talk 06:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose – Good nomination, but per Janke, looks very unnatural. Kentuckian|💬 14:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Question: What is with that wire on right side of face (his left side) ? --Petar Milošević (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't look like it belongs there! I say let's edit it out. Bammesk (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
It thought it (was) a part of head scarf and "moved" out somehow. Or someone did mistake with editing. Mistake definately. --Petar Milošević (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
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
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.
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.
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:
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.
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}}.
Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:
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 April 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 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.
Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:
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 appropriate section of the archive.
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2024 at 17:46:35 (UTC)
Reason
This image significantly contributes to its article and allows the reader to understand the topic in a way that they absolutely would not be able to without it. It's cool and useful, and it has clear enough instructions for how to use it. I'm very new to this sort of thing but I think it should be considered, as it's definitely one of Wikipedia's most unique images. (Image is in SVG format)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2024 at 12:35:48 (UTC)
Reason
High quality image of a railcar on a rack railway; good EV as the toothed rack rail is clearly visible; lead image in the Dolderbahn rack railway article; recently promoted to FP on Commons.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2024 at 02:22:44 (UTC)
Reason
Iconic, high quality painting with high EV. The image does fall a bit short on resolution being 36px away from meeting the criteria, but I don't think that really matters considering the EV.
Oppose - Good nomination and excellent EV, but sadly this is not a good scan. Even if we forget the below par resolution, the colors are way off the original (see here). If you can find an alt scan with a higher resolution and better color to the original, I'd consider supporting. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per above. MER-C 10:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2024 at 02:41:01 (UTC)
Reason
Quality lead image in Vela Supernova Remnant article. The image is large so if your browser can't open it, consider opening it at 2048 x 2048 pixels at This link, or download and view it in a photo viewing/editing software. The image is FP on Commons.
Support as nominator – MER-C 10:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose – The abbey is barely 1/3rd of the image. I'd prefer a tighter crop, with less vegetations, which can boost EV too. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment – Agree. Too much leafy foreground. Narrower framing would improve accessibility. Leaning toward oppose. – Sca (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
One of the lead images in a GA infobox is not encyclopedic enought? We have promoted images with even lesser exposure. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose – Per Charles. Cute kitty, but nothing special. Przepraszam. – Sca (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, per Charles. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment – I am puzzled by Charles' "No EV" oppose rationale. Can Charles or others elaborate as to what characteristic(s) must a photo have to pass the EV criterion #5 in regard to the Cat article? Also, can you point to a photo in the domestic cat category (or elsewhere on the web) that meets the EV criterion (not on the technical or compositional basis, but just on the EV basis)? Thanks. Pinging @Charlesjsharp: since he does not participate here on a regular basis. Bammesk (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Fails on criterion #5. Does not add significant encyclopedic value to the article and does not help readers to understand the article. Unless you have never seen a cat before. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Charlesjsharp, correct me if I am wrong, you are saying "cat" is a common subject, therefore no image of a cat can "add significant encyclopedic value to the (cat) article and help readers to understand the (cat) article"? Bammesk (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I've been pondering over the same question raised by Bammesk for the past 2 days. I don't understand the EV rationale by the oppose votes either. It says in the criterion that the image should add significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article which this image fulfills clearly. The criterion also says picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value. The current candidate is used as an example of the member of species Cat in it's infobox. How can you add any more of encyclopedic value to a picture? When you imagine a cat, this is how it looks like. When you google a cat, this is what it shows. When you see an animal that looks like this, you can understand this is a cat. This is clear cut EV right there. I'd like to ping @Sca and Hamid Hassani: also to the discussion for their take on encyclopedic value of a cat image. Any take would be much appreciated and will help me chose a better image next time (Since per FPC guidelines, All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image.) Also, you may suggest any alternate image too. Additionally, I'd like to ask Charles how this candidate is any different than your black kite nomination that seemingly is in the similar context. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
All black kites, as wild animals, look much the same. A high quality image can represent the species, either perched or flying, male or female (if you can tell the difference). Domesticated animals all look different and one image cannot represent them. Quite apart from that, this is a very ordinary image and there are hundreds of excellent cat images to choose from. Finally, we already have an FP. It is not as silly as the attempt to nominate a picture to represent 'MAN'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
It's a cat. Period. -- Sca (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment. Note existing FP. I'd observe also that, while we have FPs of ubiquitous species, the technical standards tend to be higher, since such photographs are easier to take. blameless 02:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
True, but this is a ubiquitous wild animal, not one of 600 million cats. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Good, cute picture; but the cat is hunched over, and its body is not completely visible, esp. from the side. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I do understand the oppose votes. Personally, I think this fails criterion #3: "Is among Wikipedia's best work." --Janke | Talk 16:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
My inquiry (puzzlement) wasn't/isn't about the oppose "votes", my inquiry (call it critique) is about the oppose "rationale". Charles' rationale being "no EV" followed by ZERO elaboration. That's what was puzzling. As User:The Herald said above: "All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image" (per instructions on top of WP:FPC). The keyword is "specifics". User:Sca did offer some specifics when he wrote "nothing special", i.e. not an impressive image. But Charles' original oppose "rationale" offered ZERO specifics. Eventually, Charles finally offered some specifics in This diff by saying "very ordinary image". . . . . . On another note: not "among Wikipedia's best work" is a criterion, but by itself, with no elaboration whatsoever, it lacks "specifics". When you reject a nom, give the nominator "specifics", or at least give the nominator something, instead of nothing. Bammesk (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Support – I personally don't understand the reluctance to support this image. I thought it would be pretty obvious per the nominated reason. ―Howard • 🌽33 19:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Support – EV is fine for me. Yann (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Support – I personally think it’s a very nice image of a very cute kitty. I don’t understand all the oppose votes. It represents the article well. Also, as the Herald stated, I don’t see how this nomination is any different from many of Charles nominations. Kentuckian|💬 05:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2024 at 12:02:05 (UTC)
Reason
While it does not fulfill the first criterion, it is undeniably a historical photo. This specific image is probably the most published version, and even appeared on the cover of The Economist. An alternate photo does exist, however this is the less widely distributed version and appears on no English wikipedia articles.
Support as nominator – ―Howard • 🌽33 12:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - "appears on no English wikipedia articles" makes it ineligible. --Janke | Talk 16:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely we should not promote the worse copy. Replace the image and then nominate. Though, really, we want a bigger copy if one exists. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Added a cropped version of the alternate. This one does not, however, meet the size requirement.
Waaay too tightly cropped. If it's cropped at all, it should be the same way as the original Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 16:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2024 at 03:00:59 (UTC)
Reason
Seems like a good example of Vainakh tower architecture, dating back to first century and medieval times in Chechnya and Ingushetia regions of Northern Caucasus. This photo is a military fortification in the medieval village of Erzi. According to the file description, these towers are around 95 feet (29 meters) high. I saw this on Commons FPC recently.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2024 at 20:19:00 (UTC)
Reason
The framing of the image, is of high resolution, and the Washington Monument at the bottom half of the frame serves almost as a leading line pointing up to the eclipse. The foggy background adds to the dramatic effect.
Seems that's the top of the monument, rather than the top half. -- Sca (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Procedural oppose – Opposing all 2024 eclipse pictures for 10 days due to stability issues. Try renominating after a month or so, so that the image is stable in the articles The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. This is a great photo (well-composed, everything in focus, good color and gamut), it's just too soon. Moonreach (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Aye. Little too soon. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 23:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Procedural oppose– As per above. X (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
This section is for Featured Picture (or delisting) candidacies whose closure is postponed for additional editing, rendering, or copyright clarification.