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).
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.
Already fails multiple featured picture criteria (specifically the first three). In fact, it was already delisted on Commons about 11 months ago. Do I really need to say the rest?
Oppose until copyright status clarified - hardly in public domain? (Also, I'm not a fan of this style of animation - "illustrated radio". Where can you find the true art of animation (not illustration) nowadays? --Janke | Talk08:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the wording, not everything has to be in "public domain". Placing a request at Commons:Help desk can get the CC tag reviewed in a day or two. Also, on the file page, the sourced archive.org link [1] is there as a license backup. Bammesk (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern was because the file page still says "This file, which was originally posted to an external website, has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the above license is valid." --Janke | Talk19:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I had the reviewer tag, I'd mark it. Unfortunately, I don't, and Commons seems to take several months for reviews like this. We can work independently of them for FP, though I agree that it shouldn't be on the MP while it's marked as unreviewed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vulcan has checked the source YouTube link and indeed it is licensed under CC-BY. Sadly, Vulcan is not a licence reviewer so Vulcan cannot mark the licence verification.–Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere!06:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2024 at 01:15:32 (UTC)
Original – A 2020 episode of Game Theory hosted by MatPat covering the SCP Foundation, Russian trademark law, and Creative Commons licenses.
Reason
This episode of Game Theory (a webseries created by MatPat) has over six million views on YouTube and serves as the best free representation of Game Theory and of MatPat's video style as a whole.
Comment there is an awful lot of fair use imagery in here by the looks of things, including the image of Sean Connery as James Bond and several video games. Has anyone reviewed to ensure that MatPat had the right to release this under a free license? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is my understanding that the applicable Commons policy here would be de minimis. The focus of the video is not on these elements, and cropping such elements from the video or using them on their own would be problematic. However, the removal/censorship of such content would significantly impact its quality. See commons:COM:DM; I think the applicable criteria here is Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the subject, and is essential to the subject (e.g. removing it would make the file useless) but the work is shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity, so de minimis may apply. Now, the use of these elements is not in low detail or clarity, but each copyrighted image shows up for a few seconds at most in a fifteen-minute video, so I think that qualifies as minimal usage. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the argument, but the sheer volume of various items adds up. It's the same reason I nominated one of my own video uploads for deletion after the fact... too much fair use, despite a valid license from the creator. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Chris's concern, I am wondering whether it is possible to change the video thumbnail (I don't really know how that works). I am not sure this one meets the spirit of Wikipedia:Logos. The logo may be used for acceptable commentary within the video, but it is not being used that way in the articles in which the thumbnail appears. I am honestly also a little skeptical of the de minimis claim here. Regarding featuring, I think I land on oppose, as criterion 4, if it is met, is met only barely and arguably. blameless19:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to mark myself as an oppose as well; this is definitely a case where a proper review should be done to ensure copyright compliance (which ironically holds for most YouTube videos) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The EV is very strong as this depicts the supergroup that performed the song, which is perhaps the main reason for the song's notability. However, the technical quality is poor. Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2024 at 00:40:56 (UTC)
Original – A photograph of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle, in front of Earth and Mars, which are visible in this photograph
Reason
High EV concerning the Apollo 11 articles; high quality and stunnning image that is the mix of the most famous space mission and Earthrise; FUN FACT: Michael Collins, who took this photo, is the only human who is living or deceased that is technically not in the pic
Support Original, the original is now restored as well (by Yann). It has the original tone. It is well preserved, so I see no reason to remove the tone and convert to grayscale. Oppose Alt 1, photo is well preserved, therefore removing the tone is original research FP criterion #6. Bammesk (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that a grayscale version is original research is quite farfetched IMO, since this is originality a black and white picture, and that the tone was added later. Yann (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"WP:Original research" means there is no source to support this was originally published in grayscale. Plus no indication the color tone is an unintended defect. Even in modern times some B&W photos are published with a color tone [2][3]. Bammesk (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reconstruction of plate tectonics extending one billion years into the past. Good addition to the two articles it is in. Easy to digest animation. Published in peer-reviewed article Here. More info about this video Here and Here.
Couple comments... a legend would help with this work (what's the difference between the purple and red lines?) Also, why does the 0 MYA end up looking little like the current map? Is it excluding sedimentary infill, or...? Like, New Zealand ends up south of Australia rather than where it should be. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The red lines are "convergent boundaries" where two plates slide towards each other. The arrows are pointed toward the plate that rises in height, as the other plate slides underneath it. The purple lines are "divergent boundaries" where two plates slide apart from each other. The black lines are "transform boundaries" where two plates move laterally with respect to each other (neither towards, nor apart). Together the red, purple and black lines show the tectonic plate boundaries. I can add legends for these in the article image captions (similar to the lead image Here). As far as New Zealand, I don't quite get the gist of your point. New Zealand is at the boundary of the Australian plate and the Pacific plate, see here. This animation doesn't really show a traditional map, say of land versus water. It shows crust and upper mantle, I think. The animation shows regions of "dark tan" and regions of "blue-ish gray". I will look into it and find out what they are exactly, and reply later. Bammesk (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I labeled it on the file page and image captions. . . . . . The "tan" and "blue" are Continental crust (land plus its peripheral shallow seabed). The "white" is Oceanic crust (not shallow but deeper ocean floor) [4]. Just by watching the animation, it's obvious that the "tan" is older continental crust (over a billion years for the most part), and the "blue" is younger continental crust (under a billion years for the most part). Bammesk (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I find it very interesting, but quite confusing, at least on the first viewing. I'd support a version without the flickering boundary lines, and in just one color for the continents. It is of course impossible to exactly represent the earth hundreds of millions years ago, but a more "viewer friendly" version would be nice. --Janke | Talk09:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2024 at 16:09:23 (UTC)
Original – Tony Lovato, the lead vocalist for the pop punk band Mest
Reason
Excellent pose, taken while he was on stage. I'm normally very iffy about my concert photographs because I've been limited to a cell, but this one I think crosses the threshhold. Previously nominated here; failed to meet quorum (3 supports)
Exaggerated pose is excellent for a comedienne. Only reason I'm not supporting is that the original photograph appears to have curled when scanned; there is a black triangle about 50 px at its widest at the bottom. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the original photo, right? So the EV would seem to derive not from its being a photo of the hole--since I agree with Sca that's it not great photography, though I don't know what the best techniques are for photographing a hole--but its being the starting point of a meme. Since so few meme images have been properly licensed, I'm not sure we've had occasion to consider what might make them featurable, have we? blameless23:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If an image meets the FP criteria and does a good job of depicting/enhancing/contributing to the subject of the article(s), that should be sufficient I think, or that's how I think of it. Of course some images are a lot more than just sufficient. Bammesk (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think this is one of Hubble’s best images. Are we going to delist half of all space FPs we have because “the JWST” can replicate them? EF513:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2024 at 18:58:39 (UTC)
Original – Lower Manhattan seen in an aerial shot in August July 2001, a two months before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.Alt 1 – Restored and fixed perspective distortionAlt 2 – Blue tint corrected
Reason
Gorgeous image of Lower Manhattan, a two months before it no longer looked like this. Image is large as well, and I only noted small distortion on a few buildings at the edges of the picture, all the rest are straight from what I've seen. High EV as it depicts a building complex with it's surroundings, just a two months before they left us. Amazing image overall, especially for 2001. May need slight clean-up, I did notice dust at the top.
I added Alt 1, restored it and fixed the perspective/lens distortion (it was visible at far left and far right). And added the image to the World Trade Center (1973–2001) article. BTW, the date of the photo is July 2001. I verified it in Highsmith's book (per User:Blameless), and added a note on the file page, the book says "two months before" the attacks. Pinging participants @EF5, Janke, Moonreach, and VulcanSphere:, @Blameless:. Bammesk (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first photo should be delisted and Alt 1 is still in pretty bad quality so oppose both, and the 2005 explanation that "it is old, but so is the Colosseum" being poor reasoning which would definitely not pass in 2024. However, I think the photo has great potential and if a higher quality photo like a scan from Google Arts Project ever comes out, there is a chance it could be restored and I would support it. Wcamp9 (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I say Keep. FP criteria 1, 2, 3 have exceptions for historic photos, also criterion 5 says "A picture's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value". This being a 1849 photo of a very notable person qualifies I think. I would support a "delist and replace" when a better version becomes available. Bammesk (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Rectangular version has long been extant and is widely used in publishing internationally. (Note: Chopin, one of the most prolific & influential of composers, was only 39 when he died of TB. Also, the bookcase in Alt. 1 is distracting.) – Sca (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist — Below the current pixel target on both axes and blurry up close. As the alt shows, these aren't artifacts of the original photo, this is just a poor transfer. I'm not impressed by the alt, either, it's also a crop and I think the contrast is too much. This version shows a more complete version of the photo than either, but it's too dark and much too small. Moonreach (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible second photo-portrait of Chopin
Delist and Replace with Alt 1: Considering its historical value, I believe the poor quality can be excused. However, I believe it is worth mentioning that a second photo exists which likely shows Chopin.[1] ―Howard • 🌽3318:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have issues with that one, too. Firstly, the metadata page has a claim that it's not a photo at all but a crop from a painting, with a link to the alleged painting. Secondly, our copy doesn't match the one in the CBC article and has many strange details that make me wonder if it's been AI-upscaled from this copy. Moonreach (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, I think. Many of the quality issues mentioned (grainy and blurry) are to be expected from an 1849 daguerreotype--this is not the era of Mathew Brady a decade or so later when there were nice standardized glass plates. There are other issues with the scan and crop, but those would best be addressed with a d&r, and there needs to be another version that can get consensus, which there doesn't seem to be yet. I am hoping that a better scan of this photograph (the other possible photos of Chopin are all of contested authenticity as well as lesser quality) will emerge, and then perhaps a restored version can be brought to FPC for a delist and replace. For now, I don't see a strong need to delist this one, which is of obvious historical importance. blameless05:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 December 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 15 Dec 2024 at 17:48:35 (UTC)
Original – From the source: "Every man, a poster at Camp Hood. Taking a cue from the Office of War Information (OWI) poster "If you talk too much, this man may die", Private Ivan A. Smith, editor of the Camp Hood Panther, Camp Hood,Texas, originated this novel method of reminding his fellow soldiers to practice discretion. Looking into the mirror at the camp"Alt 1 Retouched version
[[File:
|150px]]
White strip, right edge fixed
Reason
Amusing, well-composed visualization of the times secrecy is necessary for one's well-being. I think it has a lot of character for such an abstract idea. There are a few light scratches, but I think most of the background noise is authentic to the wooden boards (note, for instance, that the basin of the sink is smooth) and that white line in the upper right is a lamp pull-cord, not damage to the picture.
It needs restoration. A white stripe on the right edge (bottom), a stitching error on his side pocket (extends left and right), and several obvious scratches. I will support if that's done. Oppose Original. Bammesk (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: there is still a white strip on the (lower) right edge. It's easy to see on a black background (see the thumbnail to the right). I wouldn't crop it out, because the crop is already tight. Suggest cloning it with nearby pixels. Bammesk (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2024 at 12:22:00 (UTC)
Original – Flooded Iron Bridge in the town of Kłodzko, Poland on 15 September 2024.Alt 1 - Floods surrounding the Franciscan monastery at Kłodzko, Poland
Comment – Przepraszam, but EV doesn't seem to be there. There's little visual info to explain the context or locale of this weather event. – Sca (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in favor of This image which is in the article, is FP on Commons, and should be in the infobox IMO. The nom image doesn't convey a sense of scale, the car tire and the street lamps are too small to convey scale, and the buildings are cut up. Bammesk (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bammesk and per Sca: that other image does a much better job of illustrating the scale and impact of this disaster. Nick-D (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1, although given that it's a completely different image I think it would have been better to run a separate nomination for it — Moonreach (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This section is for Featured Picture (or delisting) candidacies whose closure is postponed for additional editing, rendering, or copyright clarification.
_Kebili.jpg)
_Malolotja.jpg)
_Taveuni.jpg)
.jpg)
Female amur falcon
Male amur falcon_at_Lonavala.jpg)
_(vagrant).jpg)
_on_octopus_tree_(Heptapleurum_actinophyllum)_Colo-I-Suva.jpg)
_male_Cap_Bon_2.jpg)
_Las_Tangaras.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Side view of a granulated sea star, Zanzibar, Tanzania.
Top view,_Zanz%C3%ADbar,_Tanzania,_2024-05-31,_DD_66.jpg)
,_Zanz%C3%ADbar,_Tanzania,_2024-05-31,_DD_67.jpg)
.jpg)
.svg){kind=link}
_(2024-137).png){kind=link}
.jpg)
_Caldas.jpg)
_Upolu.jpg)
_in_flight_Taveuni.jpg)
,_pow%C3%B3d%C5%BA.jpg){kind=link}
,_pow%C3%B3d%C5%BA.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_pow%C3%B3d%C5%BA.jpg)
,_pow%C3%B3d%C5%BA.jpg)
,_pow%C3%B3d%C5%BA.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)